Assets of an employer, including transferred properties, are liable for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT

Appellant is the 2^nd opposite party in E.C.C No.255 of 2014 of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Idukki. Respondents 1 to 4 were the applicants. The applicants are the legal heirs of late Mr. Ratheesh who was employed on 01.10.2012 by the 5^th respondent for maintenance works in a building owned by the 5^th respondent. The concrete beam and slab fell on Mr. Ratheesh while he was undertaking the work. He got seriously injured and died as a result of the accident. Therefore, claiming compensation under the Employees Compensation Act , the application was filed by the respondents 1 to 4.

2. The 5^th respondent, who was the 1^st opposite party before the Commissioner, filed a written statement and denied the case of the applicants. It was stated by the 5^th respondent that the building and property were sold to the appellant/2^nd opposite party. She therefore denied that she was liable to pay compensation. The appellant also entered appearance and filed a statement. Appellant submitted that the property was purchased only on 20.10.2012, after the accident. He submitted that the deceased was not employed by him and he is not liable to pay compensation.

3. AW1 was examined on the side of the applicant and Rw’s 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the applicants. Exhibits R1 to R6 were marked on the side of the respondents. After analyzing the evidence and contentions of the parties the learned Commissioner allowed the application and granted a compensation of Rs.8,23,800/- with interest at the rate of 12%. Cost and funeral expenses were also granted. The learned Commissioner further held that if the compensation is not deposited, applicants will have the liberty to realize the amount from the property in Re.Sy.No.352 in Anakkara Village.

4. Appellant has approached this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner to the extent that it permits the respondents 1 to 4 to realize the compensation from the property in Re.Sy.No.352 of Anakkara Village, which was purchased by the appellant from the 5^th respondent.

5. Though notice was issued, only respondents 1 to

3 have entered appearance through the Counsel. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is raising a question of law as to whether the Commissioner was correct in holding that the applicants are entitled to realize the amount from the property he purchased from the 5^th respondent and omitting to make the properties owned by the 5^th respondent liable. He relied on judgment of this Court inK.Sreedharan v. Thajudeen Koya and Others [(1996)II LLJ249Ker], and pointed out that this Court held in the said judgment that the properties owned by the employer, including the properties which were transferred after the liability accrued are liable for the amount awarded under the Employees Compensation Act . He also referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court in Natures First India Private Limited v. The Tahsildar and Others [(2025)IIILLJ579Mad], in support of this contentions. He also made reference to Section 14A of the Act which provides that where an employer transfers his assets before any amount due in respect of any compensation, the liability whereof accrued before the date of the transfer, the liability shall be of first charge on that part of the assets so transferred. He submitted that, in view of the said provision, appellant concedes that there is a charge on the property purchased from the 5^th