IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
J.R. Midha, J.
Om Prakash & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Commissioner, Employee Compensation & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8883 of 2019; Civil Miscellaneous (Appeal) No. 36650 of 2019, 36651 of 2019
Decided On : 28-05-2021
Employees' Compensation Act - Liability of Property Owner - The court held that the primary responsibility to pay compensation for the death of laborers during the course of employment lies with the owner of the property, as per Section 12(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order and recovery proceedings related to an accident during construction work, resulting in the death of two laborers and injury to another. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation awarded compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased laborers, holding the petitioners liable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the writ petition not maintainable due to the availability of the remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act. Despite this, the court held the petitioners liable for the compensation, dismissing the writ petition and directing the transfer of the awarded amount to DSLSA.
Issues: The issues involved the liability for compensation in the event of an accident during construction work, the maintainability of the writ petition, and the recovery rights of the petitioners against the contractor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the admission of the petitioners that the deceased laborers were employed through the contractor, establishing their liability for compensation as per the Employees' Compensation Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the awarded amount was directed to be transferred to DSLSA. The petitioners were granted recovery rights to pursue separate proceedings to recover the award amount from the contractor.
JUDGMENT
J. R. Midha, J. - The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23rd December, 2013 passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation and the recovery proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.
2. This case relates to the accident dated 14th October, 2012. The petitioners were constructing a tin shed/godown at property bearing Kh No. 361, Pipeline Road, Near Tata Dharam Kanta, Alipur, Delhi through a contractor. During the course of the construction, the wall collapsed which resulted in death of two labourers, namely, Pintoo and Shravan and injury to one named Mithilesh Kumar. This accident was reported in Dainik Jagran and Punjab Kesari newspapers on 15th October, 2012. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation received a letter dated 22nd April, 2013 from National Human Rights Commission with respect to the above accident whereupon he issued notice dated 31st May 2013 under Section 10A of the Employees Compensation Act to the petitioners.
3. The petitioners appeared before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation and submitted the reply in which they stated that respondent No.2 is the owner of the subject property and he authorized the contractor Suresh to construct the tin shed/godown in their property; the contractor engaged the labourers and agreed to bear the liability of any mis-happening during the construction work; and the contractor gave an affidavit dated 23rd May, 2012 to the petitioners in this regard. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation issued the notice to the contractor, Suresh, who appeared on 18th December, 2013 and submitted the reply in which he stated that he was working as a Mistri with petitioner No.2 and he did not give any signed document to the petitioner.
4. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation in the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2013 noted that respondent No.2 admitted in his reply that he is the owner of the subject property and he was carrying on the construction of godown and a wall fell down which resulted in the death of two labourers, Pintoo and Shravan and injury to third labourer, Mithilesh Kumar. With respect to the defence raised by petitioner No.2 that the contractor alone was liable, the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation noted that Section 12(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act fixes the primary responsibility in the first instance to pay the compensation on the owner of the property.
5. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation rejected the defence of the petitioners that the contractor alone is liable to pay the compensation. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.7,88,902/- each to the legal representatives of Pintoo and Shravan. The Commissioner directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.15,77,804/- towards compensation in both the cases along with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident within 30 days.
6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to defend the case and no issues were framed.
7. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation issued the notice dated 22nd October, 2012 to respondents No.1 and 2 who appeared before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation. The respondent No.2 admitted to be the owner of property in question and he submitted that he had authorized the contractor namely respondent No.3 to construct the tin shed/godown. Respondent No.2 claimed that respondent No.3 being the contractor alone is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.3 also appeared before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation and submitted that he was working as Mistry with respondent No.2 and he denied any liability to pay the compensation.
8. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation held that respondent No.2 liable to pay the compensation. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.7,88,902/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident to the legal representatives of Pintoo as well as
The primary responsibility to pay compensation for the death of laborers during the course of employment lies with the owner of the property, as per Section 12(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act.
Principal employers cannot evade liability for employee compensation under statutory provisions, despite contractual exemptions, as the rights of workmen supersede such agreements.
The principal employer is liable for compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, even if the employee was engaged through a contractor, ensuring protection for workers.
The principal employer is liable to pay compensation to the employees who have been engaged by him through the contractor for the work which the principal employer is supposed to carry out by his own....
The principal employer is jointly liable for compensation claims of employees engaged through contractors, ensuring workers receive adequate compensation for workplace injuries.
The liability of the principal employer and the contractor under Section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
Assets of an employer, including transferred properties, are liable for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the deceased worker if covered under the policy, and it cannot avoid its liability to p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.