Sham Singh vs Executive Engineer

R.P. Sethi, J.—Amar Singh son of Shar Singh, a workman employed by the petitioner for execution of the work of the respondent met with

an accident and was awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 19152/- to be paid by the respondent-Executive Engineer. After the payment of

the amount to the injured workman the petitioner-Executive Engineer filed an arbitration application No. 26/1977 for reference of disputes to the

arbitrator for adjudicating the responsibility for payment of the compensation between the contractor and the department. The arbitrator vide his

award dated 4.10.1986 held,

It is the responsibility of the Contractor to pay the compensation on account of the injury caused to his labourer. The amount of compensation

awarded by the Labour Court vide order dated 5.5.1976 is recoverable from the contractor ant] as such his claims arc rejected.

Aggrieved by the award the petitioner-contractor filed this petition for setting aside the award on the ground of alleged mis-conduct of the

arbitrator.

In the objections filed on behalf of the respondent Dept. the allegations of fact were denied.

It was submitted that the award passed by the arbitrator was factually correct and legally sound.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 16.4.1988:

Whether the arbitrator has misconducted in the proceedings. OPP

Relief. OPP

The learned Counsel for the parties did not lead any evidence.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Mr. Sheikh learned Counsel appearing for the contractor has argued that the award is liable to be set aside on the ground of legal misconduct of

the arbitrator elaborating his argument he has submitted that in view of the award of the Labour Court the petitioner-Contractor was not liable to

compensate the respondent-Department It is urged that as the arbitrator has ignored the specific provision of law, the award is liable to be

quashed. Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the workmen in bet compensation Act, herein after called 'the Act', imposes a liability upon the

principal to pay the compensation to the workman irrespective of the fact that such workman was employed by a person employed by the

principal for the purposes of execution of the contract of the principal. However sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Act provides that where the

principal is liable to compensate under Sub-section (1) of Section 12, he is entitled to be indemnified by1 the contractor or any other person from

whom the workman could have recovered the compensation. The provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act are intended to award

compensation to the workman without any further delay which could not be avoided to be paid on the technical pleas of immediate liability. The

principal contractor being vicariously liable has been held to be statutorily obliged to make the payment irrespective of the agency sought to be

employed for the execution of the work. However that does not absolve the contractor to indemnify the principal who has compensated the injured

workman under the social welfare legislation as incorporated under the workmen Compensation Act. There does not appear to be any illegality

attributable to the arbitrator which could be termed as legal misconduct as argued by Mr. Sheikh. The petitioner-contractor has failed to discharge

the onus of proof of issue No. 1 which is accordingly decided against him.

The result is that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition deserves dismissal which is accordingly dismissed but under the

circumstances of the case no order as to costs.