The liability of the principal employer and the contractor under Section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘The Act’) against the impugned order dated 30.08.2006 in W.C. No.16 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru (in short as “Commissioner”).

2. The appellant was the O.P. No.3, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein were the claimant No.1, Opposite Parties Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively, before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

Case of the claimant

3. Deceased Vinukonda Polaiah is husband of the claimant. While he was working as a rod bender with O.P. No.4, met with an accident and died on 16.09.2004 as the rod touched electrical wire. O.P. No.1 is Sub-contractor, O.P. No.2 is the Executive Engineer who entrusted the work to O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.4 is the main contractor who obtained the work and entrusted the same to O.P. No.1. The claim is for Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation with costs and interest.

Contention of the O.P. Nos.1 to 4:

4. O.P.No.1denied the employment, wages, relation between deceased and himself apart from all the contents of the application.O.P.No.2 also filed counter in the same lines as contended by the O.P.No.1. They further stated that, construction work is being done by the Public Health Department, Eluru, hence he is not a necessary party. O.P. No.3 – Superintendent Engineer stated the he entrusted the work, hence he is not a necessary party. He further stated that, agreement collected by Public Health Engineering Department, Eluru in the agreement vide clauses 3,4,9 under the caption ‘Safety Measures’ at page numbers 195- 197 regarding safety measures to be taken and it is the sole responsibility of the contractor who is the O.P. No.4.

5. Issues – Enquiry:

a) Basing on the rival pleadings of both parties, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues.

1. Whether the deceased is a workman and whether the accident occurred, during the course of employment or not?

2. What the wage and age particulars to determine the quantum of compensation?

3. Whether all the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation or not?

b) During the course of enquiry, the claimant herself was examined as AW.1. She reiterated the contents of the petition in her chief examination. In support of her case, she filed copy of First Information Report – Ex.A1, Inquest Report – Ex.A2 and Post Mortem Examination Report – Ex.A3.

c) Claimant flatly denied the suggestion made to her in the cross examination that the contractor is only liable to pay the compensation. She stated that, 20 persons worked as rod benders. She is aware that, Public Works Department gave contract to Coramandel Prest Crates Pvt. Ltd. Sri A.M.R.Das is the Sub-contractor. One Sri M.Ramesh Babu, Superintendent, Office of the Public Health Department, Eluru examined as RW.1. He categorically stated that, the works have been entrusted to Coramandel Prest Crates Pvt. Ltd. in the joint venture with M/s. Durga Construction Corporation, Vijayawada by the Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Department, Rajahmundry and the same is being executed by the Contractor in the premises of Water Works Compound. O.P.No.3 is not the principal employer. The Contractor who entrusted the work is the employer. As per the contents of the agreement, the safety measures need to be taken by the Contractor. In support of their contention, they filed Ex.B1 - Authorization and Ex.B2 – Agreement.

6. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner opined that, death of the deceased occurred during the course of employment and it was not disputed by any of the parties. The casual employee employed for trade or business is also a workman entitled for compensation and coming to the liabilities of the Opposite Parties, learned Commissioner opined that,