Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1117 (MP)

HARIHAR SINGH v. MST. DILAU

2007-10-15

ARUN MISHRA

body2007
Judgment Arun Mishra, J. ( 1. ) The appeal has been preferred by the contractor aggrieved by order dated 15.5.1998 passed by Commissioner for Workmens Compensation in Case No. 2/96/WC Act (fatal). ( 2. ) Mst. Dilau filed a petition claiming compensation on account of death of her son Vidyapati who was a workman employed by Harihar Singh, contractor. While maintaining the transformer in electric substation in the workshop of Northern Coal Fields Ltd., he was subjected to electric shock due to that he died, consequently compensation of Rs. 1,20,160/- and penalty was claimed. ( 3. ) The Northern Coalfields Ltd. in its reply denied the claim on the ground that deceased was not in their employment. Harihar Singh was also not employed as a contractor. No permission was granted to maintain the transformer as such it was not liable. ( 4. ) The contractor also denied the claim. Deceased was not in his employment as such petition be dismissed against him. ( 5. ) The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has found that Vidyapati died while maintaining the transformer. He was employed by Harihar Singh. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has awarded compensation of Rs. 89,084/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Dissatisfied with the same, contractor has come up in the appeal. ( 6. ) Shri Y.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has submitted that there is finding recorded by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation that Vidyapati died while maintaining the transformer and the contract for maintenance was given to the contractor. In view of the aforesaid finding considering section 12(1) of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation ought to have saddled the liability upon the principal employer also. ( 7. ) Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Northern Coalfields Ltd. has submitted that deceased was not in the employment of NCL. Contract was also not given to Hari Singh, thus the NCL could not be said to be the principal employer in the facts of the instant case. ( 8. ) First coming to the question whether contractor was given the work of maintenance of transformer. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has considered the aforesaid aspect in Para 24 of the order and as apparent from Ex. ( 8. ) First coming to the question whether contractor was given the work of maintenance of transformer. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has considered the aforesaid aspect in Para 24 of the order and as apparent from Ex. D-1 to D-3 that contract for maintenance was given to the contractor by NCL. Work of maintenance of transformer which include painting etc. was given to Hari Singh as such the stand taken by the contractor as well as NCL that deceased was not in the employment and contract was not given has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation. The work of maintenance of transformer was necessary to be performed so as to carry on the the trade or business of principal. Thus, it has to be considered ordinarily part of trade or business of principle. Without maintenance of transformer it was not possible for the NCL to make production of coal. Section 12(1) is quoted below :- "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 contract 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 workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he could have been liable to pay if that workman 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 workman under the employer by whom he is immediately employed." In view of the aforesaid subsection (1) of section 12, it is clear that principal employer NCL also cannot escape the liability to make the payment of compensation. Thus, liability is also to be borne by principal employer. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Appeal allowed in part.