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

1986 Supreme(Ker) 329

Judges : T.KOCHU THOMMEN,BALAKRISHNA MENON,BALAKRISHNAN
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
CHANDU - Respondent
Case No : M.F.A. No. 517 of 1981
Decided On : 10/13/1986
Advocates Appeared :
S.K. Brahamanandan; G.S. Prabhu; For Appellant K. Mohammad; Ahamedkutty Puthlathu; K.P. Dandapani; For Respondents

The liability of the principal employer under S.12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the interpretation of the policy's coverage for workmen in the employment of contractors performing work connected with the business or occupation of the insured.

Headnote:

Workmen's Compensation Act - Liability of Insurer - S.12

Fact of the Case:

The deceased workman fell down and died while removing the shutter of the newly constructed bleaching plant of the principal employer. The insurer contested the liability, arguing that the deceased was not employed in work connected with the business and occupation of the insured.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, and out of risk incidental to employment. The liability of the principal employer under S.12 is covered by the term of the policy, making the insurer jointly and severally liable to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased workman.

Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased was employed in work connected with the business and occupation of the insured, thus attracting the policy covering the insured's liability to a workman in the employment of the contractor.

Ratio Decidendi: The court adopted the principle that an employer is liable if his workman died by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, as mandated by S.3 of the Act. S.12 makes the principal employer liable as if he was himself the employer of the workman employed by the contractor and engaged in work connected with the trade or business of the principal employer at the relevant time.

Final Decision: The appeal by the Insurance Company was dismissed with costs.

Judgment :-

1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company from the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 holding the principal employer (the'insured') and the insurer jointly and severally liable to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased workman in the sum of Rs. 18,000/-. The principal employer has not challenged the order of the Commissioner.

2. The deceased was an employee of the contractor engaged by the principal employer. On 31-1-1976, while removing the shutter of the newly constructed bleaching plant of the principal employer, the employee fell down and died.

3. The only dispute which survives in this appeal is as regards the contention of the insurer (the appellant) that the deceased was not employed in work connected with the business and occupation of the insured so as to attract the policy covering the insured's liability to a workman in the employment of the contractor.

4. The policy dated 18-4-1975 issued by the insurer for the period from 1-4-1975 to 1-4-1976 contains the following term:

"It is hereby understood and agreed that the indemnity granted is extended to cover the legal liability of the Insured to workmen in the employment of Contractors performing work for the Insured while engaged in the business and occupation in respect of which the within policy is granted but only so far as regard claims under the W. C. Act 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act prior to the date of the issue of the policy the premium in respect of such extended insurance to be calculated on the total sums paid to such contractors by the Insured in respect of work executed during such period of insurance."

(emphasis supplied)

The policy covers the legal liability of the insured to the workmen in the employment of the contractors performing work connected with the business or occupation of the insured. S.12 of the Act clearly says that the principal employer is liable to compensate workmen employed by a contractor in the execution of work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal employer. It is this liability which is covered by the policy. S.12, in so far as it is material, reads:

"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 workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him; and where the 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 workman under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.

(2)

(3)

(4) This section shall not apply in the case where the accident occurred elsewhere than 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 otherwise under his control or management."

5. Counsel for the insurer submits that the deceased was removing the shutter of the bleaching plant. Removal of a shutter, he says, is not done in the course of employment in connection with work which is part of the trade or business of the principal employer. We do not agree.

6. The employee was at the relevant time doing work in the premises of the principal employer. The bleaching plant, the shutter of which was removed by the employee before he fell down, is part of the principal employer's factory engaged in the production of his goods. Removal of a shutter was undoubtedly work connected with the trade or bu




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
whatsapp-icon Back to top