SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Cal) 179

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHAKRABARTI, MALLICK
NEW INDIA TANNIS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
AURORA SINGH MOJBI - Respondent
A. F. O. O.  186  Of  1955
Decided On : DECEMBER 13, 1956

Advocates Appeared:
JITENDRA MOHAN SEN GUPTA, JNAN CHANDRA ROY, NALINI KANTA MUKHARJI, PHANINDRA KUMAR SANYAL

The work of occasional repairs to a factory chimney is not a part of the ordinary trade or business of a company that manufactures goods in the factory.

Headnote:

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - SECTION 12 (1) AND (2) - CONTRACTOR - PRINCIPAL - LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION - WORK NOT PART OF PRINCIPAL'S TRADE OR BUSINESS - NO LIABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant company, engaged in manufacturing extracts of myrobalan, contracted with Hazara Singh to dismantle and hoist a portion of its factory chimney. During the work, Bishan Singh, employed by Hazara Singh, fell from a height and died. Respondent No. 1, Bishan Singh's father, filed a compensation claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the appellant company, alleging that Bishan Singh was its employee and the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Finding of the Court:

The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held the appellant company liable for compensation under Section 12 (2) of the Act, finding that the hoisting of the chimney was a part of its ordinary trade or business and that Hazara Singh was an independent contractor. The appellant company appealed, contending that the work was not part of its ordinary trade or business and that it was not liable as the principal.

Issues: 1. Whether the work of hoisting the chimney was a part of the appellant company's ordinary trade or business? 2. Whether the appellant company was liable for compensation under Section 12 (2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the work of hoisting the chimney was not a part of the appellant company's ordinary trade or business. The company's business was to manufacture goods, and the factory and chimney were merely necessary facilities for carrying out that business. Occasional repairs to the chimney were not part of the company's trade or business, whether ordinarily or extraordinarily. 2. Since the work was not part of the appellant company's ordinary trade or business, it was not liable for compensation under Section 12 (2) of the Act. The court rejected the Commissioner's finding that the appellant company had admitted liability by praying for an order of indemnity against Hazara Singh, holding that the prayer was made in the alternative and did not constitute an admission.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the Commissioner's order was set aside, and the respondent's application for compensation against the appellant company was dismissed.

CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) THE appellant-company carries on the business of making extracts of myrobalan and exporting the same to foreign, countries. It has a factory called 'rong Kuti' where its manufacturing business is carried on. Early in 1953, the chimney needed re-pairs and by a letter written on the 18th of March, the appellant-company engaged one Hazara Singh to dismantle the upper portion of the chimney and hoist a new length of chimney instead. In pursuance of that contract, the work was taken up by Hazara Singh through his men and while the work was being carried on, one Bishan Singh who, among others, was engaged in it, fell from a height of sixty feet and met with an instantaneous death.

( 2 ) ON the basis of the death of his son by the accident of the fall, respondent No. 1, Aurora Singh Mojbi, made an application for compensation against the appellant und-r the Workmen's Compensation Act. He alleged that Bishan Singh had been employed by the appellant and while so employed, had received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment which had resulted in his death. The appellant-company by its written state rent disc aimed liability. The plea taken was that the wont of the fitting of the chimney had been given on contract to Hazara Singh, who was an independent contractor, and that the deceased, while he might have been an employee under Hazara Singh. was never an employee under the appellant. Obviously, with the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Act in. mind, the appellant-company added that the work of fitting the particular chimney or chimneys in general was not a part of its ordinary trade or business. Having taken that plea, however, the appellant company proceeded abruptly to pray that Hazara Singh might be made a party to the proceeding under Section 12 (2) of the Act. That prayer was followed up by another contained in paragraph 7 of the written statement which stated that if the appellant-company was made liable for compensation, its right to be indemnified by the contractor to the extent of the decretal amount might be declared.

( 3 ) THE compensation claimed was Rs. 2400/-on the basis of monthly wages ranging between Rs. 60/- and Rs. 80/ -. With regard to the amount of the claim, the appellant-company stated that it did not know what the wages of the deceased had been, but it would submit that his wages could not have exceeded Rs. 30/- or Rs. 35/- per month.

( 4 ) THE learned Commissioner for Women's Compensation decreed the claim against the appellant-company for Rs. 1803/- together with costs, but he directed that the appellant company would be entitled to be indemnified by Hazara Singh to the extent of the decretal amount. It is against that order that the present appeal has been preferred.

( 5 ) IT will be seen from what I have already stated that the learned Commissioner held the appellant-company liable on the footing that it had contracted with Bazars, Singh in the course of and for the purposes of its trade or busin ss for the execution of a piece of work, namely, the hoisting of a portion of a chimney, which was ordinarily, a part of its trade or business. Mr. Sanyal who appears on behalf of the appellant-company contended that the view taken by the learned Commissioner was utterly wrong and that the foundation on which he had made it rest was wholly unsound.

( 6 ) I am of opinion that the contenlion of Mr. Sanyal must prevail. The learned Commissioner has based his finding almost e tirey on the plea taken by the appellant-company in its written statement. He has said that since the appellant-company had prayed for an order of indemnity against Hazara Singh, it had admitted that the hoisting of the chimney was a part of its ordinary trade, or business and that, having made that admission, it could not consistently plead to the contrary and say that the hoisting of the chimney could not be and was not a part of its ordinary trade or business. "the prayer












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top