[132] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 26.02.2026 Jeet Singh …Appellant versus Sattan ….Respondent Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Ms. Kuljeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Gurdarshan Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] The only issue raised in the present appeal is with respect to the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

[2] Admittedly, the appellant engaged one Mukhtiar Singh Bawaria to dig a well in his fields. Mukhtiar Singh Bawaria further engaged labourers including deceased-Nathu Singh.

[3] Counsel for the appellant submits that since the deceased was engaged by Mukhtiar Singh Bawaria and not by the appellant, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay compensation in the absence of there being any direct employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the appellant.

[4] The argument raised is misconceived.

[5] Admittedly, Nathu Singh son of the claimant was working in the fields of the appellant. Even though, the appellant engaged Mukhtiar Singh Bawaria and not the deceased directly, yet the appellant cannot escape his liability of being principal employer. The precise situation was envisaged by the legislature and was taken care of by Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, which reads as under:-

12. Contracting.—

(1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any employee employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that employee had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the employee under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.

(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the employee could have recovered compensation, and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the employee could have recovered compensation, and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing an employee from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal.

(4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken, or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management.”

[6] In view of the mandate of Section 12(2) of the 1923 Act, the appellant is granted right to recover the compensation amount from the contractor-Mukhtiar Singh Bawaria, liability of the appellant to pay the claimant as ordered by the Commissioner cannot be interfered with.

[7] The present appeal is disposed off with the modification in the order passed by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant shall pay the amount to the claimant and will be entitled to recover the amount from the contractor.

[8] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off.

(PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE

26.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma'