Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Raju @ Maya Ben & Ors. - Respondent
FAO No. 362/2013 & CM 14681/2013 (Stay)
Decided On : 25-04-2014
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 2(l), 4(1)(b) - Appellant has suffered only 52% disablement in the loss of earning capacity - Commissioner have taken the disability as 100% disability - In view of the serious injuries to the respondent no. 1 which has resulted in 52% disablement - Respondent no. 1 cannot any longer perform the work of electrician at high places - Held, Commissioner has committed no illegality in taking the disability as 100% - A disablement of as large as 52% is that no one will employ the respondent no.1 as an electrician - Appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30, 12 - Accident - Contract labour - Employer - Compensation - Liability of - Parent employer respondent no. 2 and the person with whom the respondent no.1 was working was the appellant no.1. - Respondent no. 1 was working with the appellants because the respondent no. 2 was contracted to supply labours for doing the work of the appellants - Respondent no. 2 admitted before the Commissioner that appellants as per the work order were being supplied labour by the respondent no. 2 for working with the appellant - When the accident happened, the work order was valid - Respondent no. 2 deliberately concealed this document and accordingly the Commissioner has rightly held the respondent no. 1 to be the employee of the respondent no.2 and who as per the direction of the respondent no. 2 was doing the work for the appellants.
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 16.7.2013 by which the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein has been allowed.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was employed by the respondent No. 2 herein (respondent No. 3 before the Commissioner). Respondent No. 2 was appointed as a labour supply contractor by the appellant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 before the Commissioner) and the contractor supplied labour, including respondent No. 1, to the appellant No. 1 for various works to be done of the appellants including electrical work which was being performed by the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 on 21.4.2012 at about 2.30 p.m. was attending to an electrical defect in the point in the overhead ceiling of the high rise building of the complex and while doing this work the spike of the ladder collapsed and as a result of this he suffered multiple fractures and other injuries on his body. Respondent No. 1 therefore claimed to have become totally crippled and disabled with 100% loss of earning capacity and accordingly the claim petition was filed.
3. Before adverting the issues to be decided it is necessary to refer to Section 12 of the Act and which reads as under :
“12. Contracting -- (1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any (employee) employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that (employee) had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the (employee) under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.
(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor (or any other person from whom the (employee) could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from which the (employee) could have recovered compensation) and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a (an employee) from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal.
(4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere that on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management.”
4. As per Section 12 of the Act two persons are liable to the employee who suffers an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. One is the parent employer who employed him and second is the person with whom the employee is working on the directions of his parent employer, called the principal under Section 12. As per Section 12 of the Act the person with whom the employee is working, though not employed by such a person, such person became a principal employer and an employee is entitled to claim compensation from the person with whom he is working ie the principal although not directly employed by the said person
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
