Ratios
a. If the work carried out by the contractor is a part of the trade or business of the employer, for any accident took place while that work is carried on by that contractor, the employer is liable to the injured workmen.
b. Removal of ash generated while producing electricity in a thermal power plant is a part of the business or trade of the electricity generating company and for any accident that took place while removing the ash, the electricity generating company is liable under the Workmen Compensation Act.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

Being aggrieved by the finding that the Electricity Board, as a principal employer, is liable to pay compensation, the present appeals have been filed. Since all the appeals have arisen out of the same accident, they are taken up together for joint disposal.

2. It is the case of the respondents/claimants, that when deceased, viz., Ramayee, W/o. Veerappan (claimant in W.C. No. 212 of 2002), Kamala, M/o. N. Murugesan (claimant in W.C. No. 39 of 2002), Komalam, W/o. Balakrishnan (claimant in W.C. No. 304 of 2001) and P. Latha, D/o. Lakshmi (claimant in W.C. No. 213 of 2002) were engaged as workmen with Triple ‘ M ‘ Engineering Contractor, Mettur Dam, on 27.1.2001, they sustained injuries, in an accident, which arose out of and in the course of employment, resulting in their death. According to them, while they were collecting coal from a heap of waste coal, it suddenly slided on them and in the result, they died. At the time of accident, they were aged 42, 30, 33 and 19 years respectively and were paid salary of ` 50/-, ` 150/-, ` 150/-and ` 80/-per day respectively. Legal representatives of the deceased have claimed compensation for their death.

3. The second respondent-Contractor, in his counter affidavit, admitted that the accident has occurred arising out of and in the course of employment. He further submitted that a sum of ` 55,000/-has already been paid as part of compensation to the respondents/claimants, in each case separately and since the employees were insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., Mettur Dam, third respondent herein, between 8.1.2001 and 27.1.2001 and that the third respondent-Insurance Company has to indemnify them.

4. The Electricity Board in their counter affidavit has denied their liability to pay compensation. According to them, the agreement between the Board and the Contractor was to remove the coal dust by engaging their own man and in view of Clause 8 of the agreement, dated 16.12.2000, entered into between them and the Contractor, it is the immediate employer, viz., the second respondent herein, who has to pay the compensation. The Board further submitted that the deceased were employees with them and that therefore, the Board is in no way connected with the claim petitions. Yet the Board, as advised by the Inspector General of Police, Superintendent of Police, Revenue Divisional Officer and Member of Legislative Assembly, the Board arranged for the immediate payment of ` 55,000/-to be paid by the second respondent and also instructed the second respondent-Contractor, to arrange for payment of compensation amount, from the Insurance Company.

5. The third respondent-Insurance Company has denied the manner of accident and they further submitted that only the Electricity Board has to pay compensation.

6. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, legal representatives of the deceased have let in evidence, reiterating the manner of accident. To support their case, they have also marked documents. On behalf of the second respondent-Contractor, an independent witness has been examined as R.W.1. Senior Assistant of the third respondent-Insurance Company has been examined as R.W.2 and R.W.3 is an Investigating Officer.

7. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, found that the accident had occurred arising out of and during the course of employment and having found that the second respondent-Contractor has taken a policy with National Insurance Company, the third respondent herein, for his employees for loading and un-loading of waste coal, on the basis of the wages fixed at ` 40/-, held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay appropriate compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. Upon perusal of the conditions in the letter, dated 20.12.2000 of the Electricity Board, rejected the argument of the Electricity Board and held that the second respondent is not only a contractor of the board, with reference to th