[150] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.01.2025 Selvel Media Service Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant versus Omwati and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Arjun Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] The only contention raised is based upon cross-examination of the claimant(s) to submit that there was no employee-employer relationship between M/s Selvel Media Service Private Limited and the claimant(s). However, counsel is not in a position to dispute that the claimant(s) proved that Chhote Lal is employee of M/s Suraj Security Service, who was contractor under M/s Selvel Media Service Private Limited.

[2] Section 12 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 deals with rights of workman-employer through contractor by the principal employer. The same 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 a 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 that 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.”

[3] In view of the afore reproduced provision, the principal employer cannot escape from his liability to pay compensation to the workman/employee injured in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. Though, the principal employer has a right to recover the same from the contractor.

[4] In view of aforestated provision of law, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the Commissioner, holding the appellant principal employer to pay compensation to the workman injured in an accident arising out of employment.

[5] Finding no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. The same is ordered to be dismissed [6] All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, stands disposed off.

(PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE

14.01.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No