The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrine of notional extension of employment applies in determining whether a death occurred in the course of employment. Additionally, the court clarified the entitlement of the principal employer to indemnity from the contractor under Section 12(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The second opposite party in W.C. case No.69 of 2008 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kottayam is the appellant herein. The mother dependant-legal heir of deceased Shaji filed the claim for compensation for the death of her son Shaji occurred on 4.12.2005 while he was employed under the opposite party. The first opposite party was a contractor under the second opposite party. The second opposite party was the principal employer who had entrusted the first opposite party/contractor, the work of digging cable trench at Manimala. The first opposite party employed deceased Shaji for that purpose. On 4.12.2005 at about 3 p.m. after completion of his work, deceased Shaji went with other workers to the nearest Manimala River for taking bath and cleaning cloths and while taking bath in the river, he drowned and died. The body was recovered from the river on the next day. The death occurred during the course of employment under the first opposite party. The first opposite party provided accommodation to the deceased and the other workers for stay after their work, but for the employment under the first opposite party, he would not have reached that place. So the doctrine of notional extension of employment is applicable in this case. The deceased was aged 30 years and drawing Rs.300/- per day as daily wages. The claimant claimed Rs.4,15,960/- as compensation.

2. After conducting preliminary enquiry, the commissioner found that there was prima facie case and the delay in filing the application was condoned as it was within the time limit and the applicant was temporarily exempted from remitting court fee and decided to proceed with the case and issued notice to the opposite parties.

3. Though notice was served on the first opposite party, he did not appear and remained absent.

4. The second opposite party entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegations. They contended that first opposite party was an independent contractor and employed workers of his choice and there was no employer-employee relationship between the second opposite party and the deceased and there was no nexus with the employment and the cause of death. So there is no notional extension of employment. They are not liable to pay any compensation. They prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. AWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimant. AW1 was the claimant and AW2 and 3 were two co-workers of the deceased. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on the side of the opposite party.

6. After considering the evidence on record, the commissioner found that the death occurred in the course of and arising out of an employment under the first opposite party who is a contractor of the second opposite party and second opposite party being the principal employer under Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is liable to pay compensation and fixed the compensation payable as per the Schedule as Rs.4,19,800/- and directed the second opposite party to pay the amount with 12% simple interest with effect from 4.12.2005 within 30 days from the receipt of the order along with funeral expenses of Rs.2,500/-, failing which the amount will be realised with 30% of such amount towards penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal has been preferred by the second opposite party, the appellant herein.

7. Heard Sri. Mathew K. Philip, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. O.K. Sivadas, learned counsel for the second respondent who was the first opposite party before the authority below and Sri. S. Manu, learned counsel for the additional respondents 3 and 4 as they were impleaded as legal heirs of the original first respondent/the claimant before the authority below, since she died during the pendency of the appeal.

8. Earlier the case was disposed of by oral judgment by dictating the judgment in open court, but before signing the judgmen