Compensation for death of workman to be paid by Principal Employer.

E. PADMANABHAN, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the Dean, Agricultural College and Research Institute challenging the award of compensation by the Commissioner of Workman Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Madurai in W.C. Case NO: 169 of 1994 ordered on 7.4.1995.

2. Heard Mr.S.Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.Umapathy for Mr.S.Silambannan for the first respondent and Mr.R.Parthipan, for the second respondent and Mr.N.Doraiswami for the third respondent. With the consent of counsel on either side the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. For convenience,the parties will be referred as arrayed before the tribunal below.

3. The dependent of late Sikkandar moved W.C.No: 169 of 1994 claiming a compensation of Rs.87,388/= against N.Mani, Contractor and the Dean, Government Agricultural College respectively being opposite parties 1 and 2. It is the appellant's case that the opposite party No.1 engaged the deceased Sikkandar in the construction of Ladies Hostel for the Government Agricultural College at Killikulam Tuticorin District. While working as Mason on 8.12,1993 the deceased fell down from the scaffolding which was of the height of 12 feet and sustained head injury. On 15.12.1993 the deceased succumbed to injuries while in the hospital. It is claimed that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment resulting in the death of the workman. The age of the deceased on the date of accident, it is stated was 24 years and he was earning RS. 1500/= per month. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation in all aggregating Rs.87,388/=. At the instance of opposite party No.2, one Sudalaimuthu, contractor was impleaded as opposite party No.4. So also the Executive Engineer, P.W.D was impleaded as opposite party No.3. All the four opposite Parties filed separate objections to the Claim Petition.

4. The second opposite party namely Dean, Government Agricultural College contended that the deceased was not engaged by the second opposite party and all the averments, the applicant has to prove including the employee sustaining head injuries in the course of employment as well as the quantum of compensation etc., The second opposite party contended that it has entrusted the civil construction work to the Executive Engineer, Special Division, PWD, Tuticorin, as a deposit work and it is only the PWD Engineer who entrusted the execution of work to the Contractor and Executive Engineer, PWD is a necessary party. The second opposite party is not liable in any manner and he is an unnecessary party and no petition is maintainable against the second opposite party under the Workmen's Compensation Act and if at all it is the other respondents who are liable to pay the compensation in the event of the applicant proving the claim.

5. At the instance of the second opposite party, the Executive Engineer, PWD was impleaded as opposite party No.3. The Executive Engineer filed a separate statement of objections denying the liability and contended that he is not aware of the engagement of the deceased by the contractor and in any event, the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The first opposite party contended that he is not a necessary party and denied the liability. It is admitted that the first opposite party is one of the registered contractors under the third opposite party, who entrusted the construction work to the first opposite party. The third opposite party Executive Engineer, PWD is the Principal Employer. The first opposite party engaged one Sudalaimuthu the 4th opposite party as sub-contractor to whom the sub contract work was entrusted by the first opposite party. The first opposite party has not exercised any control over 4th opposite party. The first opposite party, is in no way liable to the claimant. The deceased, if at all was engaged by the4th opposite party, Sudalaimuthu who alone is liable. The first opposite party further submitted that