The main legal point established is that under Section 12 of the Employees' Compensation Act, the principal employer is liable to pay compensation to any employee employed through a contractor.

JUDGMENT :

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed (for short, “the Commissioner”) by which the compensation is awarded against the appellants. Against the said order, the appellants/original respondent nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

It is the case of the original petitioners that Sunil Haribhau Bharate (respondent no.1) (for short, “petitioner no.1”) was working as a sugarcane cutting labourer along with his wife Satyabhamabai Bharate. The petitioner no.1 and his wife went for labour work with appellants sugar factory during the year 2012-2013. Respondent no.6 is labour contractor, he had engaged the petitioner and his wife with the appellants – sugar factory. The petitioner no.1 had gone to work along with his bullock cart. He and his wife used to cut the sugarcane and fill it in their bullock cart and transport it to the sugar factory. On 17th December, 2012, they had cut the sugarcane in the farm of Mr.Shriniwas Bhairu Mane. They filled sugarcane in their bullock cart and they were going towards the sugar factory, at about 4:15 p.m., when their bullock cart came near irrigation colony on Solapur road, left side tyre of the bullock cart went in a ditch beside the road. So the bullock cart lost its balance and the right side tyre of the bullock cart jumped, so the bullock cart fell in 10 feet ditch beside the road. The wife of petitioner no.1 Satyabhamabai Bharate fell down and the bullock cart fell over her body. She was seriously injured in the accident, she became unconscious. The other bullock cart workers and the petitioner no.1 himself took his wife Satyabhamabai to the hospital of Dr. Tande in the nearby village, but on examination, the doctor declared her dead.

3. The age of Satyabhamabai was 32 years on the day of accident. She was performing her work for the benefit of appellants – sugar factory. There was masterservant relationship between them. Hence, the petitioners filed claim petition before the Commissioner for getting compensation. Considering the evidence on record and after hearing the parties, the Commissioner has awarded the compensation. Against the said judgment and order this appeal.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are the sugar factories. They had engaged “Mukadam” for sugarcane cutting work. Deceased Satyabhamabai Bharate and petitioner no.1 were not the employees of the sugar factory. They were not appointed by the sugar factory nor they worked for the sugar factory, therefore, there is no master-servant relationship between petitioner no.1 and his wife with the appellants – sugar factory. The said accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of petitioner no.1 himself. The petitioner no.1 neglected the condition of road and the said accident was caused. The appellants never paid Rs.6,000/- per month to deceased Satyabhamabai. The appellants had engaged contractor, he was close relative of the petitioners. He might have engaged them for sugarcane cutting work, therefore, it is his liability to look after all these aspects including the compensation to be paid to the petitioners, but these facts are not considered by the Commissioner and erroneously held that appellants are liable to pay compensation. Hence requested to allow the appeal.

5. It is contention of the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 that the contractor-respondent no.6 was engaged by the appellants. The deceased was doing the work of sugarcane cutting for the appellants- sugar factory. So there is master-servant relationship between the deceased and the appellants. The Commissioner has rightly held that there was employer-employee relationship between deceased and appellants. Hence the order passed by the Commissioner is legal and valid.

6. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the judgment and order passed