JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants/original respondent nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the judgment and award dated 22.07.2022 passed in Application (W.C.) No.4/2015 by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Ahmednagar, by which application filed by respondent nos.1 to 8 seeking compensation under Section 4 (1) (a) of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been allowed. (Hereinafter the parties are referred as per their original status before commissioner)

2. Respondent nos.1 to 8 herein (original applicants) had filed an Application (W.C.) No.4/2015 before the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation at Ahmednagar with contention that deceased Rafique Khalifa was employed as driver on water tanker owned by respondent no.4. Respondent nos.1 and 2 (present appellants) had contract with respondent no.3 for water supply during the summer of 2013. Respondent no.3 had hired the services of tanker owned by respondent no.4 in pursuance contract with respondent nos.1 and 2. The deceased Rafique while performing his duty as driver on said tanker died on 23.04.2013 due to cardiac arrest/ heart attack. It is the contention of applicants that the deceased was on 24 hours duty. He was required to fill the water tanker from the distance of more than 60 kilometres and distribute the same in the wadis and villages. The work of water supply was continuous causing mental and physical stress to deceased consequently, he suffered heart attack. According to the applicants, the deceased died during the course and arising out of his employment as a driver on water tanker bearing Registration No.MH-11-A-2309. The applicants/ dependents of deceased, therefore, approached the Commissioner, claiming the compensation of Rs.6,39,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also 50% penalty for default to pay the compensation within statutory period.

3. Inspite service of notice, none appeared for respondent nos.3 and 4 hence the application proceeded ex-parte against them. The respondent nos.1 and 2 caused appearance and filed written statement at Exhibit-C-8. It is admitted that respondent no.3 is their contractor and they had an agreement for water supply with him. However, they contend that the liability in respect of the employees of respondent no.3 or any person employed on the vehicle engaged by him for the supply of water was exclusively on the shoulder of respondent no.3. They denied any liability towards the employees on the tanker. It is further contention of the appellants/respondents that the applicants have no legal right to claim compensation from them, since there was no employer employee relationship between deceased with them.

4. The learned Commissioner framed the issues at Exhibit-10. The applicant no.1 Suraiyya and applicant no.4 Kaamran recorded their oral evidence and evidence of CW-3 Shravan Rengde in support of their claim. The respondents relied upon evidence of Dilip Sonkusle i.e. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Akole in support of their claim. The Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation after hearing the parties allowed the application and directed respondents to jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.6,39,000/- to the applicants alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondents are further directed to pay the penalty of 50% of the compensation amount i.e Rs.3,19,600/- in terms of Section 4-A (2) (b) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.

5. Mr. Kothari, learned Advocate alongwith Ms. Nandini Chittal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that no employer-employee relationship ever existed between deceased and appellants. He would submit that a copy of an agreement has been filed on record before the Commissioner at Exhibit-C-11, which shows that there was agreement for water supply between the District Collector at Ahmednagar and respondent no.3. The appellant