Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 2186
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM
Meenakshi Sundaram M/s. Agniamman Pictures - Appellant
Versus
C. Murugesan & Others - Respondents
C.M.A.NPD.No.1791 of 1999
Decided On : 29 August 2006
Liability of the principal employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act when the workman is under a contractor.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation - Principal Employer - Workman under Contractor - Minimum Wages Act - [Mason, Workmen's Compensation, Principal Employer, Minimum Wages Act] - The court discussed the employment relationship between the parties, the role of the contractor, and the liability of the principal employer. It referred to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and a previous case to establish the liability of the principal employer. The court confirmed the finding that the third respondent was the principal employer and upheld the compensation awarded by the Commissioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Mason, sustained serious injuries while working at a construction site. The dispute arose regarding the liability of the principal employer and the quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the finding that the third respondent was the principal employer and upheld the compensation awarded by the Commissioner.
Issues: Dispute over principal employer liability and compensation quantum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the employment relationship, the role of the contractor, and the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act to establish the liability of the principal employer.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the compensation awarded by the Commissioner was confirmed.
The respondent in W.C.No.144/1997 is the appellant in the above appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the claim petition.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
According to the petitioner/first respondent herein was working as a Mason under the first respondent for two years and the first respondent had undertaken a construction work for the third respondent and on 07.11.1996 when the petitioner was working as a Mason in the building of the third respondent, a bullock cart carrying water tank hit against scaffolding and the petitioner fell down over the electric wire and sustained serious injuries. According to the petitioner he was aged about 29 years and was earning an income of Rs.3,900/- per month.
3. The first respondent filed a counter statement denying the averments contained in the claim petition. It was contended by the first respondent that he was not aware of the accident as he was not present at the time of accident and he was not aware of the age and income of the petitioner. The third respondent had engaged second respondent to construct his building and the petitioner was employed under the second respondent and the second respondent alone was paying salary to the petitioner and as such, the first respondent has nothing to do with the petitioner. The first respondent further contended that he was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
4. The second respondent filed a counter statement contending that he was employed under the first respondent and he was not the contractor engaged by the third respondent as claimed by the first respondent whereas the first respondent under the contract entered by him with the third respondent was constructing the building for the third respondent and while working as a Mason, the petitioner met with an accident on 07.11.19996 and sustained injuries. He further contended that since the petitioner was a workman under the first respondent, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
5. The third respondent filed a counter statement contending that he received a plan of the building alone from the first respondent and the first respondent entrusted the construction work to the second respondent and as such, the petitioner was a workman under the second respondent. The third respondent further contended that the petitioner was getting his salary only from the second respondent and he was not aware of the accident and injuries sustained by the petitioner. The third respondent further contended that the petitioner is the brother of the second respondent. The third respondent further contended that there is no employer and employee relationship between him and the petitioner and as such no compensation is payable by him.
6. Before the Commissioner for workmen's compensation, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and on the side of the petitioner one Doctor was examined as P.W.2. On the side of the respondents, one Karthikeyan was examined as R.W.1 and the second respondent was examined as R.W.2. On a consideration of the evidence available on records, the Commissioner for workmen's compensation held that the second respondent as a contractor has undertaken the construction work for the third respondent and the petitioner was a workman under the second respondent and he worked as a Mason under him. On the said finding the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation further held that the third respondent was the principal employer. The Commissioner fixed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.2000/- by applying the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,267/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 12%. Being aggrieved by this, the third respondent has filed the above appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding
