This appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-I, Chennai dated 29.11.2004 made in W.C.A. Application No.31 of 1999.
2. The Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,43,798/- to the claimant/first respondent herein, on account of injuries sustained by him in the course of employment.
3. The case of the first respondent/claimant before the authority was that he was a workman employed by the third respondent before the Commissioner, the Administration,Yamuna Valve Trim Parts Manufacturing Company. He claimed that on 4.9.1997, while he was working on the premises of the appellant/first respondent suffered electric shock. As a result, he fell from a height of 20 feet and sustained injuries in spinal chord and on his head. He was immediately admitted to Government General Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to bone and joint hospital. On account of the injury sustained by him,he suffered 100% disability and lost his earning capacity. He claimed a compensation of Rs.3,68,340/-. The appellant namely, the Electricity Board, resisted the claim on the ground that they have not employed the claimant/first respondent. It is also their case that they are not liable to pay any compensation.
4. They pleaded ignorance of the accident. According to them, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. The third respondent and the fourth respondent did not object the claim. They remained exparte.
5. After considering the materials placed before him, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on the premises of the Electricity Board/appellant, that the claimant was employed by the third respondent a Sub contractor and therefore, as a principle employer, the appellant was employed to pay the compensation.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant did not employed, that employer-employee relationship did not exist between the first respondent and appellant and that therefore they are not liable to pay the compensation. It is not in dispute that the appellant awarded a contract for supplying and fixing of MS sheet rolling shutter on their premises at Mylapore to the second respondent. According to the claimant, he would employ by the third respondent to fix the shutters on the premises of the appellant.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on tender condition No.47 to submit that, it is for the contractor to protect his employees against any accident and the contractor is responsible to meet the compensation awards. Tender No.47 for the said contract reads thus:-
"47.It is incumbent on the part of the contractor to see that it shall be his sole responsibility to protect the public and his employees against any accident from any cause and he shall indemnify the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board against any claims for damages for injury to person or property resulting from any such accident and shall also where the revision of the Workmen's Compensation Act applies take steps to properly insure against any claims there under by ways of accident risk, insurance, demand for all purposes of relief failing the same or otherwise the contractor alone will be responsible to meet the compensation awarded under the said Act".
8. The claimant has examined himself as witness No.1. It is seen from his evidence on the directions of the third respondent, he was engaged in fixing the shutters on the premises of the Electricity Board and while fixing the shutters, he suffered electric shock and as a result of which, he suffered grevious injuries. The second respondent and the third respondent did not adduce any evidence to discard the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of the petitioner would go to show that, he worked for the second respondent on the date of the accident. In the absence of any contra evidence to reject the evidence of P.W.1, it cannot be said that the Commissioner committed error in accepting the case of the complaint.
9.It is an admitted fact that the accident had occurred on the premises of the appellant. As per the tender conditions, the appellant is entitled to be indemnified by the contractor against any claims for damages for injury to a person resulting from any accident.
10. A careful reading of Section 12(2) would make it clear that the principal is liable to pay compensation and he is entitled to indemnified by the contractor from whom the employee could have recovered compensation.
12. In the case at hand, the Electricity Board contracts with the second respondent for the execution of the said work. The second respondent in turn engaged third respondent to get the work done and the third respondent employed the claimant in the execution of the said work.
13.The materials available on record would show that the appellant is the principal and the accident occurred on its premises. It is also clear from the materials that the first respondent/claimant is a workman and he suffered injuries in the course of employment. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Commissioner. However, the appellant is entitled to be indemnified by the contractor. There is no challenge as regards, to the quantum of compensation fixed by the Commissioner. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner deserves to be upheld.
N.AUTHINATHAN,J., nvi
14.For the reasons stated above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with an observation that the appellant is entitled to be indemnified by the contractor who employed the claimant. It is informed that the compensation awarded amount was deposited to the credit of W.C.No.31 of 1999 and the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-1 and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1 is hereby directed to disburse the balance amount to the workman/claimant. No costs.
21.02.2017 nvi To:
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1, Chennai - 6.
2. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-I, Chennai - 6.
C.M.A.No.3280 of 2005 http://judis.nic.in