Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the death of Udachappa, a coolie engaged by Larsen and Toubro Limited (respondent No.3), who was electrocuted on 05.05.2004 while working on a transmission line project awarded by KPTCL (the appellant) under a contract. His parents, the claimants, filed a petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, which held the appellant and respondent No.3 jointly and severally liable. The appellant, the Executive Engineer of KPTCL, challenged this order in appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, contending that the deceased was not its employee and that the contractor alone should bear liability. The respondents-claimants maintained that the deceased worked for the appellant through the contractor, attracting joint liability under Section 12. The High Court examined the documentary evidence, including the contract agreement and work order produced by the appellant, as well as the FIR, complaint, and final report which unambiguously stated that the deceased was working under respondent No.3 for KPTCL's project and died of electrocution. The court referred to Section 12 of the Act, which imposes joint and several liability on the principal employer for work carried out by a contractor that is ordinarily part of the principal's trade or business, with a right of indemnity. Applying the principles enunciated in Shri Krishnan v. Jasoda Devi (2017 SCC Online Del 11137) and the object of the provision to secure compensation for workmen, the court held that the appellant could not escape liability. The court found no perversity in the Commissioner's findings and dismissed the appeal, confirming that both the principal employer and the contractor are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, with interest, to the claimants.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Employees Compensation - Joint and Several Liability of Principal Employer - Employees Compensation Act, 1923, Section 12 - A principal employer who contracts with a contractor for work that is ordinarily part of its trade or business is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the contractor's employee for an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, with a right of indemnity against the contractor under Section 12(2). The object is to protect workmen from being dependent on a petty contractor who may be unable to pay. Held that the appellant KPTCL, as principal employer, could not evade liability; the Commissioner's order was correctly made (Paras 10-12). B) Appellate Review - Interference with Commissioner's Order - Scope of Appeal under Section 30 - Employees Compensation Act, 1923, Section 30 - The High Court will not interfere with findings of fact by the Commissioner unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Here, the Commissioner's conclusion that the deceased was employed by the contractor and died in the course of employment was supported by documentary evidence such as FIR, complaint, final report, post-mortem report, and contract documents produced by the appellant itself. Thus, no interference was warranted (Paras 8-9, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether under facts and circumstances, the claimants prove that the deceased was working as a coolie under respondent No.3 and there was a contract of work between the appellant and respondent No.3, thus making both jointly and severally liable under Section 12 of Employees Compensation Act; and whether the Commissioner's order requires interference.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the documentary evidence (Exs.P1-P4 and Exs.R1-R2) proved that the deceased was employed by the contractor for work on behalf of the appellant and died in the course of employment. Applying Section 12 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the court found the appellant, as principal employer, jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The order of the Commissioner was upheld and no interference was warranted.
Law Points
- joint and several liability of principal employer and contractor under Section 12 of Employees Compensation Act
- 1923
- right of indemnity under Section 12(2)
- death arising out of and in course of employment
- contemporaneous FIR as evidence of employment
- object of Section 12 to secure compensation for workmen
