Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

F.A.O. No.96 of 2021

(In the matter of an application under Section 30 of the Workmen’s

Compensation Act, 1923)

Block Development Officer, …. Appellant (s)

Jajpur

-versus-

Surekha Patra & Ors. …. Respondent (s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Appellant (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC. For Respondent (s) : Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Adv.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-10.12.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.12.2025

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this present appeal, the Appellant/ State has challenged the

judgment and order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum- Divisional Labour

Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.59-D/2015.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i. The Anganwadi Centre at Badasuara, Jajpur was sanctioned in

2014 with ₹5,00,000 allocated for construction. In a Palli Sabha held on 21.11.2014, Bipra Kishore Parida was chosen as contractor

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 (Village Level Leader), and a work order was issued on

25.11.2014.

ii. On 09.01.2015, Bira Kishore Patra, engaged by the contractor, was working at the site when part of the building collapsed. He sustained fatal injuries and died instantly. A police case was registered, and post-mortem was conducted at Jajpur Government Hospital.

iii. His widow, Surekha Patra, and minor son filed E.C. Case No. 59-

D/2015 before the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Cuttack, seeking ₹9,00,000 compensation. The Commissioner fixed wages at ₹6,000 per month, age at 30 years, and awarded ₹6,23,940 with 12% interest per annum, directing the Block Development Officer (BDO), Jajpur, to deposit the amount.

iv. The BDO challenged the award in FAO No. 229/2017. The High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh hearing. On 20.02.2020, the Commissioner again directed deposit of ₹6,23,940 with interest. Later, on 07.04.2020, an additional order required payment of ₹4,06,673 as balance interest, though the BDO had already deposited the principal and part interest.

v. Aggrieved, the BDO filed FAO No. 96 of 2021 before the Orissa High Court, disputing liability as principal employer, questioning the imposition of excess interest, and alleging violation of natural justice and lack of evidence on wages and age.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 13-Jan-2026 11:04:35 II. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

3. Ms. Gayatri Patra, learned counsel for the Appellant/ State respectfully submits that the deceased was not employed by the Block Development Officer, Jajpur, but by an independent contractor selected in the Palli Sabha. The contractor alone was responsible for engaging labourers, supervising the work, paying wages, and ensuring safety. Therefore, fastening liability on the appellant as principal employer is erroneous in law.

4. It is further submitted that Section 12(1) of the Employees’

Compensation Act creates only a contingent and derivative liability on the principal employer, which arises if the work is part of or incidental to the trade or business of the employer. In the present case, the construction of an Anganwadi building was not part of the ordinary course of business of the Block Development Officer.

Hence, statutory liability under Section 12(1) does not arise.

5. The appellant also contends that the Commissioner imposed liability without recording any evidence of control, supervision, or wage payment by the BDO. Such findings are perverse and contrary to settled law. The deceased cannot be treated as an employee of the appellant within the meaning of the Act, and the award of compensation against the BDO is unsustainable.

6. It is submitted that the appellant was not afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence and contest the claim. The procedure adopted by the Commissioner violated principles of natural justice,

Locati