The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the principal to pay compensation to a workman employed by a contractor under the Workmen's Compensation Act, emphasizing the requirement that the accident must have occurred on, in, or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes to execute the work.

Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation Act - Employer-Employee Relationship - S.3, S.12 - The court discussed the liability of the employer to pay compensation to a workman under S.3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the provisions of S.12 which make the principal liable for compensation to a workman employed by a contractor. The court emphasized the essentials for making a person liable to pay compensation to a workman not engaged by him and highlighted the requirement that the accident must have occurred on, in, or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes to execute the work. The court also discussed the appellate court's power to alter the decree and pass a decree in favor of a non-appealing respondent against another respondent if the circumstances warrant such a course.
Fact of the Case:

The deceased Narayanan died as a result of an injury sustained while employed at a quarry. The appellant, opposite party No. 2, appealed against the order of the Workman's Compensation Commissioner directing the payment of compensation under S.3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to the applicant, the father of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accident did not occur on, in, or about the premises on which the principal had undertaken or usually undertakes to execute the work, and therefore, the appellant was not liable for compensation. However, the court exercised its power as an appellate court to alter the decree and ordered the opposite party No. 1 to pay compensation to the applicant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the essentials for making a person liable to pay compensation to a workman not engaged by him, including the requirement that the accident must have occurred on, in, or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes to execute the work. The court also discussed the appellate court's power to alter the decree and pass a decree in favor of a non-appealing respondent against another respondent if the circumstances warrant such a course.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and ordered that the applicant was entitled to realize a sum of Rs. 3,600/- as compensation from opposite party No. 1.

Judgment :-

1. This is an appeal by opposite party No. 2 against the order of the Workman's Compensation Commissioner directing the payment by the appellant of a sum of Rs. 3,600/- as compensation under S.3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to the applicant. The applicant's son Narayanan died on 12-7-1967 as a result of injury sustained by him by accident while employed at a quarry near Mulloorkara. The appellant had entered into a contract to supply certain quantity of metal (granite stones) to the Southern Railway. The opposite party No.1 had in turn entered into an agreement with the appellant to supply the required quantity of metal at a specified rate. He had engaged the deceased Narayanan as a cooly to quarry the metal from a quarry at Mulloorkara. It was while he was working there that he met with the accident and died. The applicant who is the father of the deceased made a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation against the opposite party No.1 as well as the appellant. He alleged that the deceased Narayanan met with the accident and died while he was working for opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 therefore both of them are liable to pay the compensation under the Act. Opposite party No.1 denied his liability to pay any compensation on the ground that the deceased was not a regular employee and also on the ground that the compensation claimed is excessive. The appellant contended that he had no employer-employee relationship with the deceased or with the opposite party No.l. According to him, he purchased the metal from opposite party No.1 at specified rates and beyond that there was no other understanding between him and the opposite party No.1 regarding the quarrying of stones from any particular place. The Commissioner found that the opposite party No.1 was carrying on the business of breaking stones from the quarry and the actual execution of the work was done independently of opposite party No. 2 and that the opposite party No.1 was an independent contractor under 'opposite party No. 2. He also found that as opposite party No. 2 had in his written statement as well as in his testimony admitted that opposite party No.1 was his sub-contractor, opposite party No. 2 is his principal employer. On the basis of these findings and also on the finding that the deceased met with the fatal accident while working at the quarry in question, the Commissioner calculated the compensation at Rs. 3,600/- on the basis of the monthly wages of the deceased and directed opposite party No. 2 to pay the amount. The latter was also held to be entitled to be indemnified by opposite party No.1 for the entire amount mentioned above. It is against that that opposite party No. 2 has filed this appeal.

2. If any workman suffers an injury as a result of an accident arising out of or in the course of the employment, the employer is liable to pay compensation to the workman under S.3 of the Act: There must be an employer and employee relationship between the workman and the person against whom compensation is asked for. But, in many cases persons who want to get work done try to avoid this liability by contracting with someone else to provide labour or to execute the work and then contend that as there is no employer and employee relationship between the workman who suffered an injury and themselves, they are not liable to pay any compensation. To prevent such escape from liability to pay compensation S.12 has been enacted which reads as follows:

"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 compen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document