Supreme Court of India
Lakshminarayana Shetty vs Shantha And Anr. on 16 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: II(2001)ACC35, 2001ACJ1561, [2002(94)FLR658], (2002)IIILLJ523SC, 2001(4)SCALE449, (2003)9SCC190, AIRONLINE 2001 SC 905
Bench: B.N. Kirpal, Ruma Pal
JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal and Ruma Pal, JJ.
1. Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The respondents are the daughter and wife of the deceased Ramu who was engaged by the appellant to paint the house. While he was doing this work, he unfortunately fell down and died. The claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act was denied, but on a writ petition being filed the High Court has allowed the same claim.
3. No reasons have been given by the High Court for coming to the conclusion that this was a case which fell within the domain of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
4. There was apparently a contract between the appellant and Ramu whereby Ramu had undertaken the work of painting the house. Whether the action of the appellant by engaging a person in this manner makes him employee or a workman of the appellant was a question to be decided. The case did not fall within the four corners of the said Act and, therefore, the decision of the High Court was incorrect. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court.