V.M. Velumani, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thirunelveli, in W.C. No. 15 of 2010 (Non-fatal) dated 12.08.2014.

2. The appellant is the first respondent in W.C. No. 15 of 2010. After the death of Hariharsuthan, who was the first petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 herein were impleaded as petitioners 1 and 2. The third respondent is the Contractor of appellant and the second respondent in W.C.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:-

The deceased Hariharasuthan herein after referred as Worker was working in construction work under third respondent, who is the Contractor of the appellant. He was paid Rs. 300/- per day. On 15.06.2009 at 9.30 am when he was doing work of appellant as per instructions of third respondent he fell down from a height more than 15 feet and sustained injuries in spinal Cord and hip. Due to the said injuries spinal cord and body below hip was affected and there was no feeling below hip. The disability is total disability and he could not do any work. He was aged 21 years at the time of accident. The appellant as Principal employer, the third respondent as Contractor and the fourth respondent as insurer are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation. The worker claimed a sum of Rs. 8,86,840/- as compensation.

4. The appellant filed counter statement denying its liability to pay any compensation. There was no employer employee relationship between appellant and worker. The appellant never engaged the worker and never paid any salary. The worker was engaged by third respondent/Contractor. The third respondent was awarded Contract by appellant to do work of appellant. All the workers are employed by the third respondent only. The accident occurred on 15.06.2009 only due to negligence on the part of the third respondent to take proper safety measures. The appellant is not an industry. The provisions of Workman's Compensation Act is not applicable to the appellant organization. The appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. Only the respondents 3 and 4 are liable to pay compensation.

5. The third respondent remained ex parte.

6. The fourth respondent filed counter statement and submitted that the third respondent insured 30 workers with the fourth respondent under Workers Welfare Insurance Policy for Rs. 1,00,000/- each and fourth respondent is liable to pay only a maximum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each worker and is not liable to pay compensation as per provisions of Workman's Compensation Act. The third respondent made a claim in respect of the accident. After considering the claim, the fourth respondent paid a sum of Rs. 99,500/- to third respondent. The fourth respondent is not liable to pay any other compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim against the fourth respondent.

7. Before the Commissioner, the worker examined himself as PW.1 and examined one Dr.S. Ramaguru as PW.2 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The appellant did not let in any oral or documentary evidence. The fourth respondent examined one Selvaraj, Assistant Manager and marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

8. After recording evidence worker died. The respondents 1 and 2 were impleaded as petitioners 2 and 3 in WC. No.15 of 2010.

9. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour considered the pleadings and evidence and arguments of counsel for parties and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,34,504/- and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which directed the appellant to pay the said sum together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident viz., 15.06.2009. Challenging the said order dated 12.08.2014 made in W.C. No.15 of 2010 (Non-fatal) appellant has filed the present appeal.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to consider:-

(i) the fact that the appellant is not an Industry or public utility and that