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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Impugned in the instant appeal filed under the provisions of Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act” for short) is the Award dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Employees’ Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Doda J&K ((hereinafter to be referred as “ALC” for short) on the application of respondent No. 1, Sakina Begum Wd/o Atta Mohammed Khanji R/o Paneen Bhagwah Tehsil and District Doda, whereby a compensation for an amount of Rs. 7,58,240/- came to be passed in her favour and against the non-applicant (appellant herein) in terms of the provisions of Section 4, read with Schedule-IV of the Act along with simple interest @ 12% per annum, to be calculated from the date of death of the husband of the applicant/respondent No. 1 i.e. 4th September, 2011 till the date said amount is deposited with the learned ALC.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of the instant appeal are that the husband of respondent No. 1, namely, Atta Mohammed Khanji (hereinafter to be referred as “deceased” for short) was working as a labourer under the employment of a Contractor, who had been allotted execution of some works by the appellant/non-applicant. That the deceased was engaged for loading/unloading of the irrigation pipes from PHE store, Doda to peripheries and on the crucial date i.e. 4th September, 2011, while the deceased was loading the pipes, one pipe fell on his head, resulting into his death as a result of the critical injury sustained there from. That on the date of his death, the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as wages. That the respondent No. 1 being the widow of the deceased filed an application before the learned ALC for grant of compensation under the provisions of the Act, which was resisted by the appellant/non-applicant and the learned ALC after conclusion of the enquiry, passed the impugned order awarding compensation along with interest in favour of respondent No. 1, to be payable by the appellant/non-applicant.

3. The order impugned has been assailed on the grounds inter alia that the same is liable to be set aside as being against the facts and the law. That the learned ALC did not consider and appreciate the important and material issues raised by the appellant in its objections to the effect that the deceased as admitted by respondent No. 1/applicant, was under the employment of a Contractor and not of the appellant and as such, Respondent No. 1/Applicant was not qualified to seek compensation from the appellant. That the application of the respondent No. 1 before the learned ALC deserves dismissal on account of non-joinder of necessary party. That the learned ALC has fallen into a serious error by under estimating that the deceased was not under the employment of the appellant in view of the provisions of the law as contained under Section 2(1) (dd) of the Act. That the income of the deceased was taken without any valid proof to that effect. That no notice as needed under Section 10 of the Act was issued to the appellant.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/non-applicant, in reiteration of his grounds already taken up in the memo of appeal, submitted that the order impugned suffers from perversity and illegality as the learned ALC has passed the award of compensation against the appellant, who was not employer of the deceased, as such, was not liable to account for the same. He submitted that it is admitted case of respondent No. 1/applicant that the deceased was working as a labourer for the Contractor and not for the appellant but the said Contractor was not arrayed as a party/non-applicant in the application filed before the leaned ALC. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant cannot be directed to pay the public money without any legal justification or liability for the same. He further submitted that without prejudice to the non-maintainabi