Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Engineer, vs Smt Reddiamma @ P.Redamma on 21 March, 2012
Author: B.Manohar
Bench: B.Manohar
_SALLARE R/AT. GADDUR VILLAGE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2012 oe BEFORE: oe MFA.NO.13208/20070WC}) BETWEEN: , THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, aos Be 'y DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS © - BSNL (OUTDOR) ; ae NO.544/47, R.V.ROAD, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE, os ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y.HARIPRASAD, ADVOCATE) -- AND: ee | 1. SMT. REDDIAMMA @ P. REDAMMA. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O. LATE. RAMAIAH @-P., RAMAPPA. SMT. VASANTHAMMA, » "W/O. K: KONDAPPA, "AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. & eg 3. SMT. SALLAMMA, ~ W/Q. SUBRAMANI ALIAS MANI. | AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. ~_-KURMAI POST, PALAMANNER ss MANDAL, -.. CHITTUR DISTRICT. eg 4, SRI. C.RAJENDRA, S/O, CHINNAPPAN ALIAS CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/AT. NO. 474, 4TH A CROSS, GURURAJA LAYOUT, VIDYAPEETA BACK, BANASHANKARI Hl STAGE, : BAN GALORE-KARNATAKA STATE, - - SHRI. BHASKAR, S/O. CHENGALARAYAPpA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, | MASON, ee, mo R/AT, THALLAGUNDAPAL; ] VILLAGE, KURMAI Post, as PALAMANER MANDAL, . CHITTOR DISTRICT, A.P SHRI, DAMODHAR, S/O. MUNASWaAMy., -- AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER/ MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAIN CONTRACTOR. -- ou CHAMUNDESWarr Cc ONSTRUCTIONS, R/AT. C8/43, B.D.A. PLOT. KALAHALLI (ULSOOR LANE), < BANGALORE-42,_ ws] THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR BAGH BOTANICAL GARDEN. KARNATAKA STATE. THE ASSISTANT Expe UTIVE ENGINEER, ' KLPT.CL: .S.D-2, 7TH CROSS, " WILSON GARDEN. °" BANGALORE.27 .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L.P.SURESH, ADV FOR R1 TO R8, SRI.S.B.SHAHPUR. GOVERNMENT ADV FOR R7, SRI.S.NAGARAJ, ADV FOR R4, fn R5 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT, R6 & R8 SERVED}...
MFA FILED U/S 30(] ) OF W.c. act AGAINST THE. ~ JUDGMENT DATED 19.06.2007 ~ PASSED' IN LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER "op WORKMEN'S. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR-ADMISSION: THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED TRE FOLLOWING:
The Divisional . Engineer, © 7 Department of Telecommunications, BSNL has fied this appeal challenging the order dated 19-6°2007. made 'in WCA/FC/CR-9/2007 Passed by the Labour Oificer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore wherein the compensation has been awarded in favour of the: Claimants due to the death of Ramaiah.@ p, Ramiappa.
"2. . The brief facts of the case are as follows:
oa The wife and children of the deceased Ramappa filed a "claim Petition contending that the husband of the first Aa OF wf claimant and father of claimants 2 and 3 Pp. Ramappa was working as a laborer under the 6 respondent heesin, On 12-1-2004 while digging the trench for laying the: undererotina . cables, Ramappa died due to the electrocution. Tie dlaimaats"
filed a claim petition contending that the. de seased a was wrong under the 6th respondent, while he was digging 3 'the t 'treng h for the purpose of laying the cables, he died during the course of employment. He was getting salary of RS. 400/- per day and Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to the deatix af Ramappa, they have lost their bi ead camer and sou ugh f Tor. compensation.
3. The 4th 7e8 spontient. filed objections contending that the deceased © Ramappa was. woe 'king under the Contractor Sri. Damodar, he had. talked" the contract from the Divisional Enginéer, Department of Telecommunication, Jayanagar, "Bangaiore.. Duri ing. the course of employment while digging the land foi laying the underground cables, Ramappa died. The 5th | fespondeni filed objections contending that 6th respondent 7 Damodar is the Managing Partner of M/s.Chamundeswari
-onstructions and he has taken the work of laying the Cat underground cables. For the purpose of laying the underground cables, he had brought the deceased Ramappa and 6'? respondent was paying salary to him 'and he' died during the course of employment. The 6th respotidenit has not.
filed any objections to the claim petition. . .
4, The Divisional Engineer, ° Department : of Telecommunications filed objections contending that laying the underground cables wae' given . to M/s. _Chamundeswari Constructions, they have™ employed the, workman for that purpose. During tie cour se of eniployment while digging the ground, the said - Ramappa died. Hence, the Department cannot be held liable: to pay any compensation. The deceased was an employee vader 'the "Gh respondent and there is no relationship of master and servant between the deceased as ; _ Well ag the Department of Telecommunication. Hence, they are not Hable to-pe vy compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the Department.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen' S Compensation framed ngvessary issues,
6. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant got herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked tire documents as: Bx Pi | Ex.P11. She also examined other" two witnesse ses. as: P. Ww. 2 ae P.W.3. The 4th respondent got. examined as R. W.1, the Department of Telecommutications exainined one witnesses as R.W.2. The first claimant i in he r evidence has deposed that her husband was working asa a cone: under the 6 respondent M/s. Chamundeswart _ Coristructions, 2 On 12-1-2004 while digging the ground for la yit et the underground cables, he came in contract veith the live ceestic wire and he died on the spot. She got: marked IR, Mahi azar, Post Mortem report and charge "sheet, a: and other documents as Ex.Pl to Ex.Pll. She also produced the. décaments to show that she is the legai representative. of the deceased Ramappa. In Support of her : . 'case, she eximined one Chinnappa bin Bangarappa who was a , 'co-employee working along with the deceased. He deposed in "nis evidence that he was working along with the deceased. On 12-1-2004, while digging the ground, a live electrical wire came n contact with Ramappa and he died on the spot. P; w.3 ia his evidence has deposed that while digging the ground ° for -- ing. the underground cable, the deceased died. At" the time. "of :
death, he was aged about 50 years. ae is the wit of the deceased. The witnesses have been cross-examined. in the - cross-examination nothing contrary has beer elicited:
7. The 4" respondent' examined hiinse iself as R.W.1. In his evidence he has" ae posed' that on the i instructions of the 6th respondent, he has "brought 1 the: worl kers for the purpose of digging the ground i for laying underground cables and he is not the work contractex me cand nd he Bb AS + only introduced the deceased to the 6 res spondent. 'The B ; Department of Telecommunications examined Sri. Gopatkrishna Sub-Divisional Engineer as R.W.2. in his evid dence, he has deposed that laying down the undergrounit cable work was entrusted to M/ s.Chamundeswari Constructions. "AS per the agreement entered into between the De "parties, it ig the responsibility of the M/s. Chamundeswari
- "C vonstruci tions to lay the underground cable work. The copy of "work order and tender form were marked as Ex.R.1 and 8 Ex.R.2. As per the agreement, the Department is not liable to pay any compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. On the basis of the pleadirigs . of the. parties, 'the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held 'that dite to the electrocution while digging thie ground, the said | Ramappa died on 12-1-2004. The records: produced" Ly the parties clearly disclose that he wad WOx. king "ander the 6 respondent and he was paying salary'to sim. 'ners nists relationship of master and ser: vant between the deceased as well as the 6th respondent. Parton, the Depiartment of Telecommunications under whorr M/s s. Chamundeswari Constructions undertook the work of laying undergroiand cable. The work is done under the direct supervision of the Department of Telecoinmilnications. - Hence, the Department of Telec omininteati is is also liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, taking into consideration the salary of the Ls "deceased as Rs.4,000/- p.m., age of the deceased as 50 years sand: also taking the relevant factor of 153.09 awarded ~ compensation of Rs.3,06,180/- with interest at the rate of 12% 2s DSO Ne 9 p.a. and also directed the 6th respondent as well as the Department of Telecommunications to pay the compensation Being aggrieved by the order dated 19-6-2007 assed bythe Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; the. Department. | of Telecommunication has filed this appeal:
9. Sri. Y. Hariprasad, learned -counsel appearing tor the appellant contended that the order | pa assed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is contrary to law. As per the tendex condition, the. eontractor should not give sub-contract and nd the Cont ractor himself shall execute the work. In the- ins stent, case, the. 6" respondent has taken the responsibility of iaying the underground cable. During the course of cen] ploym : ent, "one "of the employees of the 61 resporident died: Tt is the responsibility of the 6» respondent
- : to pay the' 'compensation There is relationship of master and servant bene ' 1¢ Department of Telecommunications and the Geceaseéd.. The order passed by the Commissioner fixing oe the liability jointly on the Contractor as well as the Department of Telecommunications is contrary to law and sought for setting aside the same. He further contended that there is no jural . for disniissal of t relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the Department of Telecommunication, in terms of Section 12(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
10. On the other hand, the Jearned ; couse! "for te respondents | to 3 argued in support of: the order pas sed b the Commissioner for Workra net's 'S Compensation cena that the deceased was working under the gu respondent. The 6" respondent was paying: salary: toch him. Hence, there is relationship of master an 1d Servant, between the deceased as well as the 6 Sespondent. ; Parthee the work of the Department | of Teise orhitutnications was taken by M/s. Chamundeswart Constructions and the work is being done under 'the direct 'supervision of the Department of Telecommunications. Hence, the Department is also liable to "pay the compensation, 'In view of that, the Commissioner has "xed . the liability both on the Contractor as well as the Department of Telecommunications and the order passed by ".«, the Comfinissioner is not liable to be interfered with and sought he appeal.
7Il. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the. orar and documentary evidence let in by the parties.
12. Tt is not in dispute that the husband 61 or. the Bes respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 Pampa died- due to electrocution on 12-] -200 4a while digging the: ground for | the purpose of laying the cundergentnd cables. ~The specific case of the claimants was tliat the deoesised was working under the 6th respondent. There exists "relationship of master and servant between the deceased as. 'well @s the 6th respondent.
The 6th respondent is the Contrac stor. who had undertaken the laying of under rgrown rd ca ble we ork, : However, the 6th respondent has not entered appearance before the Commissioner and filed his objectio ons denying the averments made by the claimants.
; The records Produced by the parties Clearly disclose that the deceas sed died duri rig the course of en mployment. Hence, the "employer er is 'fiable to pay the compensation to the claimants : - due to the death of their bread earner. Further, the Police have "also. registered a case against the 6th respondent. It can be safely, held that the deceased was the employee of the 6th