Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
Mata Ram Rakhi Mandir (Trust/Samiti) - Appellant
Versus
Sania Nisha and Others - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 250, 356 of 2017; Civil Miscellaneous No. 20881, 31419, 31420 of 2017
Decided on : 15-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Amulya Dhingra, Adv., Diwakar Singh, Adv., Hari Kishan, Adv.
The main legal point established is the requirement for prompt payment of compensation under the Employee Compensation Act and the imposition of penalty for default in making timely payments.
Headnote:
Employees' Compensation - Employer's Liability - Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, Section 4(a); Employee Compensation Act, Section 4A(3) - The judgment discusses the liability of the employer under the Employee Compensation Act and the interpretation of relevant sections. It also highlights the requirement for prompt payment of compensation and the imposition of penalty for default.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant contested the orders directing payment of compensation for the death of an employee, arguing that the deceased was not their employee but was hired by an independent contractor. The appellant also disputed the interpretation of the Employee Compensation Act and the imposition of penalty for delayed payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was indeed an employee of the appellant and suffered the fatal injury during the course of employment. The court upheld the order for compensation and penalty, emphasizing the requirement for prompt payment of compensation as per the law.
Issues: Dispute over the employment status of the deceased, interpretation of relevant sections of the Employee Compensation Act, and imposition of penalty for delayed payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's denial of liability and delayed payment of compensation warranted the imposition of penalty as per Section 4A(3) of the Employee Compensation Act. The court emphasized the prompt payment of compensation as soon as it falls due.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, affirming the liability of the appellant as the employer and upholding the imposition of penalty for delayed payment of compensation.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
1. These petitions impugn orders dated 06.04.2017 and 21.07.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation whereby it was held that the deceased was an employee of the appellant and that he suffered death out of and in course of employment and the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 8, 86, 329/- along with interest @ 12 p.a. w.e.f. 31.03.2017 to respondent no.1 with penalty of Rs. 1, 53, 090/- to be deposited with "Commissioner Employee's Compensation, District North-West".
2. Brief facts according to the learned counsel for the appellant are that the appellant entered into a contract of renovation/ construction work with respondent no.5. ; that being an independent contractor, it was only respondent no.5 who was responsible and liable for the work and consequences as the work was directly under the supervision of the of respondent no.5; that respondent no.5 hired some labourers on daily basis, including the deceased(i.e. husband of respondent no.1) independently without any knowledge or interference from the appellant and that as under the contract the appellant was having only one obligation which was to make contracted payments. He further submits that the unfortunate incident took place on 01.08.2013 and the husband of respondent no.1 died on 10.08.2013. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Model Town against respondent no.5 only but later the name of Sh. Manohar Lal Kumar (trustee of the appellant) was also added. He also submits that the appellant made an ex-gracia payment of Rs. 30, 000/- for meeting the expenses of treatment and medication on humanitarian grounds.
3. The appellant argues that the impugned order has erred in holding that the appellant was the employer of the deceased; that respondent no.5 is an independent contractor who was not engaged in relation to trade or business of the appellant; that there is no oral evidence or any cogent document to show that the age of the deceased was 50 years old; that respondent no 5 never entered the witness box and has never denied the execution of the agreement; that the learned Commissioner wrongly interpreted the deposition of the appellant; that respondent no.5 is to be held responsible for any accident or injury as he was the one who employed the deceased in his individual capacity; that the respondent approached the court after the limitation period had expired for claiming the compensation cannot be held liable to pay the compensation as the deceased was employed and supervised by respondent no. 5. .
4. The appellant contends that it relies upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Bhasin Petrol Pump/ Service Station v. Mughla Khatoon, 2009 SCC OnLine(Del) 3464 which held:
".... 24. As already stated above, as per claimant's own case on the date of accident, deceased was under the employment, supervision and control of respondent No. 2 and it was respondent No. 2, who was entrusted with the installation job of steel structure work at the Petrol Pump of appellant. The deceased while performing his duty being under the employment of respondent No. 2, sustained fatal injuries after falling from a pole at the Petrol Pump owned by the appellant. Thus, there was no privity of contract between the appellant and deceased. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the deceased was employed with the appellant or there was any relationship of employer and employee, between the deceased and the appellant...."
5. He also relies upon a decision of the Madras High Court in The Dean, Agricultural College and Research Institute, Vallanad v. S. Sakilabanu & Others, (2003) 4 LLN 869
"22. In this case also, the construction put up by the Dean is not for his business and it is only an educational institution. However, construction has been entrusted to a building contractor through PWD and therefore it is the PWD contractor, who is the principal employer under whom the workman was engaged and therefore it is the contrac
