Case Note & Summary
The case involves two first appeals filed by M/s. Krishnagangaa Consultants, a contractor, against the orders of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Labour Court, Chandrapur) awarding compensation to the legal representatives of two deceased employees who died in the same accident. The appellant had undertaken a contract from Western Coalfields Ltd. (respondent no.2) and employed the deceased workers. The legal representatives of the deceased filed claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner held the appellant liable as the employer and awarded compensation. The appellant challenged the orders primarily on the ground that he was not the employer and that the liability should be on the principal employer (Western Coalfields Ltd.). The High Court noted that it was undisputed that the appellant had employed the deceased workers. The court held that the appellant, being the direct employer, is liable to pay compensation under the Act. The court also found no merit in the challenge to the quantum of compensation, as the appellant did not specifically dispute the calculation. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Section 2(1)(n) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The appellant, a contractor, had employed the deceased workers and was therefore their employer. The fact that the appellant had undertaken the job on contract from the principal employer (respondent no.2) does not absolve him of liability under the Act. The Commissioner correctly held the appellant liable as the employer. (Paras 2, 4)
B) Workmen's Compensation - Quantum of Compensation - Sections 3, 4 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The Commissioner awarded compensation based on the wages of the deceased and the applicable multiplier. The appellant did not challenge the quantum on merits but only the liability. The High Court found no error in the computation of compensation. (Paras 3, 4)
C) Workmen's Compensation - Liability of Contractor - Section 12 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The appellant, being the immediate employer, is primarily liable. The principal employer (respondent no.2) may be jointly liable, but the appellant cannot escape liability by shifting it to the principal employer. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, as a contractor, is liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for the death of employees engaged by him, and whether the quantum of compensation awarded is correct.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The orders of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 2(1)(n)
- Section 3
- Section 4
- employer-employee relationship
- contractor liability
- legal representatives
- dependency
- quantum of compensation
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 116
First Appeal No.248/2005 and First Appeal No.249/2005
Shri V.S. Kukday for appellant; Shri R.K. Maheshwari h/f Shri A. Parchure, Senior Advocate for respondents 3 & 4 (in FA 248/2005) and respondents 3 to 5 (in FA 249/2005); Shri D.N. Kukday for respondent no.7 (in FA 248/2005) and respondent no.8 (in FA 249/2005)
M/s. Krishnagangaa Consultants, through its Proprietor, Shri Gajender C. Sunder
Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandrapur; General Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd.; Dynaneshwar Asaram Khobragade; Pushpa Dyananeshwar Khobragade; Kailash Dynaneshwar Khobragade; Siddarth Dynaneshwar Khobragade; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (in FA 248/2005); and similar parties in FA 249/2005
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeals against orders of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act awarding compensation to legal representatives of deceased employees.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the orders of the Commissioner holding him liable to pay compensation.
Filing Reason
The appellant challenged the liability and quantum of compensation awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Previous Decisions
The Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act had awarded compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased employees, holding the appellant liable as the employer.
Issues
Whether the appellant is liable as the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for the death of the employees.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is correct.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that he was not the employer and that the liability should be on the principal employer (Western Coalfields Ltd.).
The respondents supported the Commissioner's findings that the appellant was the employer and liable to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant, having employed the deceased workers, is their employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and is liable to pay compensation. The fact that the appellant was a contractor does not shift liability to the principal employer. The quantum of compensation was not challenged on merits and is upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
It is undisputed that the appellant had undertaken the job on contract basis from the respondent no.2. It is undisputed that the deceased employees were employed by the appellant.
The Commissioner has held that the appellant is liable to pay compensation. The findings recorded by the Commissioner are based on the evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse.
Procedural History
The legal representatives of two deceased employees filed separate claim petitions under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner (Labour Court, Chandrapur). The Commissioner awarded compensation against the appellant (contractor). The appellant filed two first appeals before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, which were heard together and disposed of by common judgment on 9 January 2015.
Acts & Sections
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 2(1)(n), Section 3, Section 4, Section 12
