An employer is liable for compensation when an employee’s services are lent under contractual arrangements and when a fatal accident occurs during any reasonable extension of work hours including lunch recess under the doctrine of notional extension.

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in E.C. No.253 of 2015 awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.3,79,120/- and in default of payment within 30 days thereof, awarded interest of 12% p.a., the appellant is before this Court through the present appeal.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under :-

The appellant and the 5^th respondent had entered into an agreement on 21.7.2006 in and by which the sugarcane raised in the land of the 5^th respondent, upon harvest, is delivered to the appellant at tonnage price payable by the appellant to the 5^th respondent. It is the further averment of the appellant that the sugarcane becomes the property of the appellant only upon its delivery by the 5^th respondent and till then, it is the property of the 5^th respondent.

3. In this regard, it is the averment of the appellant that on 30.8.2007, the husband of the 1^st respondent, viz., Ganesan, who was under the employ of the 5^th respondent was coming to the house of the 5^th respondent at aboutg 2.30 p.m., for the purpose of taking his lunch. At that time, he found one Mari had come in contact with a live electric wire and on seeing this, the said Ganesan, acting on instinct, tried to save the said Mari, thereby resulting in his electrocution leading to his death.

4. The legal heirs of Ganesan, filed claim petition for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation, Salem in E.C. No.253/2015 contending that the deceased was employed on behalf of the appellant by the 5^th respondent and got electrocuted for which the appellant and the 5^th respondent were jointly liable to pay compensation.

5. The appellant countered the said averment contending that the claim for compensation against the appellant is not maintainable in terms of the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’) as the employment of the deceased was under the 5^th respondent and, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the appellant and emphasis was laid on Section 2 (f of the Act to contend that the term ‘Managing Agent’ defined therein would not the 5^th respondent within its ambit and that the appellant would not fall within the ambit of employer as defined u/s 2 (e) of the Act. It was further contended that the death of the deceased would not fall within the scope of accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, as his death could not be connected with his employment as the death had not occurred in the sugar cane cutting field of the 5^th respondent. It was further contended that the deceased was not an employee in any capacity as specified in Schedule II of the Act as provided u/s 2 (1)(dd) of the Act and, therefore, the claim for compensation is not maintainable.

6. On behalf of the 5^th respondent, it was contended that there exists no relationship of employer-employee between the deceased and the 5^th respondent as the deceased was working under the supervision of the Inspector employed by the appellant and that the death was not arising out of and in the course of his employment.

7. Based on the materials and contentions, the Commissioner determined the compensation payable by the appellant at Rs.3,79,120/- along with interest, totalling to a sum of Rs.10,09,941/-, which has since been deposited. However, aggrieved by the said award of compensation, th