Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corp. vs Mehar Chand and Another

R.L. Khurana, J.—One Nek Ram of about 20 years of age, son of respondent No. 1 Mehar Chand had died during the course of his employment with respondent No. 2 Jai Singh who was working on behalf of appellant H.P. State Forest Corporation in Tehsil Jwali, District Kangra. Respondent No. 1 approached the Commissioner under Workmen''s Compensation Act (for short ''the Act'') for the grant of compensation in respect of his deceased son. According to respondent No. 1, as per the claim laid by him before the Commissioner under the Act his son Nek Ram had died while in active employment of the respondent No. 2 Jai Singh and the appellant H.P. State Forest Corporation. The deceased is alleged to have sustained injuries as a result of fall of pine tree on his person while he was working in the Forest. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 was demanded. The respondent No. 2 Jai Singh the contractor did not put in appearance before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation. The appellant, H.P. Forest Corporation while resisting the claim admitted that the deceased was working in the forest and that he was engaged by respondent No. 2 Jai Singh. Appellant denied its liability and pleaded that respondent No. 2 Jai Singh being the actual employer of the deceased was liable under the law.

Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation on 21.4.1997 made his award whereby he allowed the compensation of Rs. 80,640 in favour of respondent No. 1 u/s 4 of the Act. The liability to pay the amount of compensation was fixed against the appellant, H.P. State Forest Corporation.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up before this Court by virtue of the present appeal u/s 30 of the Act.

During the course of hearing while not disputing the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation only point raised on behalf of the appellant before this Court was to the effect that under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, though the appellant as principal employer is liable to pay the amount of compensation, it is to be indemnified by respondent No. 2 the contractor being the actual employer of the deceased.

The scope and ambit of Section 12 of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in H.P. State ForestCorporation Ltd. Vs. Sheesh Ram and Others, In the said case also, the question was as to the liability of the principal employer, that is, H.P. State Forest Corporation and the actual employer, that is, the contractor of the deceased. The Division Bench of this Court held that Section 12(2) of the Act in unambiguous terms confers a right on the principal who is made liable to pay compensation under the said provision to get himself indemnified by the contractor. It was further held that in view of provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act there could not be any doubt about the legal position that appellant Corporation would be responsible to pay compensation payable under the Act to claimants even if the deceased workman was engaged actually by the contractor.

The Division Bench accordingly directed the appellant H.P. State Forest Corporation to deposit the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation within the stipulated period and liberty was given to the appellant H.P. State Forest Corporation to get indemnification of the amount from the respondent contractor u/s 12(2) of the Act.

The ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in above referred case applies to the facts of the present case on all fours. Applying the said ratio, the preset appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that the appellant would be entitled to get itself indemnified from respondent No. 2 in respect of the amount of compensation payable by it to respondent No. 1 under the impugned award. The entire amount of compensation as awarded under the impugned award by learned Commissioner stands deposited with the Commissioner on 10.7.1997. Such amount shall be released forthwith to the respondent No. 1 by the Commissioner. The appellant H.P. State Forest Corporation would be at liberty to get indemnification of the amount from respondent No. 2 Jai Singh in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act. No orders as to costs.