Bombay High Court
M/S. Technique Safety Devices Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Smt. Sampryaridevi Pyarelal Rajbhar ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:1734
wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9522 OF 2019
Omprakash Sundarlal Vishwakarma
@ Bachha, Age 37 years,
ATUL Occu.: Welder, R/at: Makalpada,
GANESH
KULKARNI Goraipada, Gokhiware, Near Valiv
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.01.16
12:54:12 +0530
Police Station (East), Dist. Palghar ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Appellate Side,
High Court, Bombay
2. Sampyaridevi Pyarelal Rajbhar,
Age 58 years, Occu.: Household
3. Kantidevi Rajesh Rajbhar,
Age 35 years, Occu.: Household
4. Priyanka Rajesh Rajbhar,
Age 18 years, Occu.: Student
5. Priyanka Rajesh Rajbhar,
Age 13 years, Occu.: Student
6. Vishal Rajesh Rajbhar,
Age 4 years, Occupation Nil
(Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are minor
through her mother Kantidevi
Rajesh Rajbhar, respondent No.2
Nos.2 to 6 r/at Jankipada, Near Range
Office, Near Gupta Kirana Stores &
Water Tank, Gokhiware, Vasai (East),
District Palghar
1
::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 :::
wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc
Native place at Rampur Soheri,
Post Hasbannpur, District Janupur,
State Uttar Pradesh (U.P.)
7. Technique Safety Devices Pvt. Ltd.
8. R.K. Bali (Proprietor),
Age Adult, Occupation Business ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10944 OF 2019
1. Technique Safety Devices Pvt. Ltd.
2. R.K. Bali, Director,
Technique Safety Devices Pvt. Ltd.
both at Shailesh Industrial Estate,
Valiv Phata, Vasai (East), Dist. Palghar ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Sampyaridevi Pyarelal Rajbhar,
2. Kantidevi Rajesh Rajbhar,
3. Priyanka Rajesh Rajbhar,
4. Riya Rajesh Rajbhar,
5. Vishal Rajesh Rajbhar,
Address of Respondent Nos.1 to 5
Jankipada, Near Range Office,
Near Gupta Kirana Stores &
Water Tank, Gokhiware, Vasai (East),
District Palghar
7. Omprakash Sundarlal Vishwakarma
@ Bachha, (Contractor)
Residing at: Makalpada, Goraipada,
Gokhiware, Near Valiv Police Station (E),
Vasai 401 208 Dist. Palghar ... Respondents
2
::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 :::
wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc
Mr. Vinod S. Gupta for the petitioner in
WP/9522/2019.
Mr. Atharva Dandekar i/by Mr. Gautam Jain for
respondent Nos.2 to 5 in WP/9522/2019 & for
respondent Nos.1 to 5 in WP/10944/2019.
Smt. S.D. Chipade, AGP for respondent No.1-State in
WP/9522/2019.
Mr. Mahesh Shukla with Mr. Niraj Prajapati for
respondent No.7 in WP/9522/2019 & for the petitioner
in WP/10944/2019.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 9, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 16, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Both these writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact. Both arise from the same judgment and order. It is, therefore, appropriate to dispose of both writ petitions by this common judgment.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9522 of 2019 was opponent No. 2 before the authority. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10944 of 2019 was opponent No. 1. Both writ petitions challenge the Judgment and Order passed by the Commissioner for Workman's Compensation and Judge, 3rd Labour Court, Thane. By the said order, the petitioners were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 7,88,240 with interest at 12 percent per annum from the date of the accident till realization.
3 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 :::wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc
3. The respondents, who were original applicants, filed an application under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation of Rs. 8,13,240. They pleaded that they are the dependents of deceased Rajesh Pyarelal Rajbhar. The deceased was working as a welder in the employment of the opponents. His last salary was Rs. 700 per day. On 8 February 2016, while the deceased was working, a wall fell on him. He was taken to Platinum Hospital, Vasai. He was declared brought dead. The accident occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment. The deceased was 35 years old at the time of the accident. The opponents had knowledge of the accident. They did not pay compensation. They did not pay medical or funeral expenses. The applicants issued a legal notice dated 16 April 2016 calling upon the opponents to pay compensation. The opponents did not reply and did not pay. Considering the age of the deceased, his income and the relevant factor, the applicants claimed that they were entitled to Rs. 8,13,240. The opponents had knowledge of the accident but failed to pay. They were liable to pay penalty up to 50 percent of the compensation. The opponents were jointly and severally liable to pay interest at 12 percent per annum from the date of accident.
4. The petitioners filed written statements. They denied any employer-employee relationship between opponent No. 1 and the deceased. They pleaded that the work of construction of a wall had been assigned to opponent No. 3. They described it as civil work. They contended that such work was not similar or identical to the work of opponent No. 1. They stated that the deceased was not 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 ::: wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc working for opponent No. 1. Therefore no question of payment of compensation to the dependents of the deceased arose.
5. Opponent No. 3 also filed a written statement. Opponent No. 3 denied employer-employee relationship with the deceased. Opponent No. 3 denied that the death arose out of or in the course of employment. Opponent No. 3 stated that the deceased was a temporary worker engaged on daily wages as and when required. Opponent No. 3 denied that wages of Rs. 700 per day were paid to the deceased. Opponent No. 3 stated that it was not liable to pay any compensation. Opponent No. 3 sought dismissal of the application.
6. The Trial Court allowed the application and directed the petitioners to pay compensation to the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
7. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9522 of 2019 contended that there was no employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the deceased. The deceased was never employed by the petitioner in any capacity. The deceased had not worked even for a single day with the petitioner. The respondents had no personal knowledge about the alleged work of the deceased. They failed to state and prove the date of joining and conditions of employment. They failed to produce any documentary proof showing the date and time of employment of the deceased with opponent No. 1. It was further contended that the deceased was not doing any hazardous work which could result in death by accident. It was, therefore, submitted that the 5 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 ::: wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc complaint was liable to be dismissed.
8. On the other hand, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10944 of 2019 submitted that the Commissioner committed a patent error in holding that under Section 12 of the Act, opponent No. 1 is the principal employer. On that basis, the Commissioner wrongly held that the deceased was an employee of opponent No. 1. It was submitted that the deceased was not employed by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the deceased was doing painting work on a contract basis when he met with a fatal accident. Hence, the deceased did not fall within the scope of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lakshminarayan Shetty vs. Shantha, 2002 III CLR 240.
9. Referring to the evidence on record, it was submitted that the petitioner was engaged in the business of plastic moulding. During cross-examination, the respondents admitted that the deceased was not an employee of the petitioner and that he used to receive wages from opponent No. 3. The respondents also admitted that they had not produced any document to show that the deceased was working for the petitioner. Attention was drawn to the written submissions filed by the respondents before the Commissioner, wherein they admitted that opponent No. 3 was a contractor appointed by the present petitioner for work in the factory and that the work was under supervision and control of the petitioner. It was submitted that opponent No. 3 was not an employer of the deceased and, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the petitioner.
6 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 :::wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc
10. In reply, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that opponent No. 1 is a private limited company. Opponent No. 2 is the contractor and opponent No. 3 is appointed by opponent No.
1. Therefore, all opponents are jointly responsible for workers engaged in the work of opponent No. 1. It was submitted that the deceased was working as a welder for several years for opponent No. 1. His last wages were Rs. 700 per day. It was pointed out that opponent Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statements admitted that opponent No. 3 was assigned work of the entire building and other civil works. This showed that opponent Nos. 1 and 2 had assigned work to opponent No. 3. It was further submitted that opponent No. 3 stated in his written statement that the deceased was working temporarily on daily wages as and when required. This indicated the existence of an employer and employee relationship. It was not disputed that the deceased was working when the wall collapsed and caused his death. It was submitted that the employer-employee relationship stood established. The petitioner failed to produce relevant documents such as the wage register. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Shri Krishan vs. Jasoda Devi and Others, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11137, particularly paragraphs 43.14 and 43.18 to 43.20, wherein the Delhi High Court interpreted the words "trade" and "business" under Section 12 of the Act and held that the term "business" must be understood in its wider meaning to advance the object of the Act.
11. It was thus submitted that the word "business" deserves a wider construction to include construction work such as wall 7 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 ::: wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc construction. On that basis, the deceased would be considered as employed by opponent No. 1 for the purpose of the Act. Hence, dismissal of both writ petitions was sought.
Reasons:
12. The record shows that the respondents claimed the deceased worked as a welder and died on site while working. The respondents served legal notice on 16 April 2016; the petitioners did not pay or reply. The respondents stated before the Commissioner that opponent No.3 was the contractor appointed by the petitioner to do work in the factory. Opponent No.3's written statement admitted engaging daily wage workers "as and when required". There is no wage register or formal contract on record showing continuous employment of the deceased by opponent No.1. The petitioners denied direct employment and disputed the Rs.700 daily wage figure.
13. The petitioners pointed out that there was no wage register and no proof of when the deceased joined. A wage register is a basic record which shows who worked, on what dates, and at what wages. If such a register existed and showed no entry for the deceased, it would have supported the petitioners. The respondents did not produce any such record. The absence of that record does not close the case. The Court must look at all other evidence. The Court cannot stop only because one document is missing. The Court must see what facts are admitted and what is proved by other material.
8 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 :::wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc
14. Here, the record before the Commissioner shows certain facts. The petitioner had appointed a contractor. The contractor had engaged labour for work on the site. The deceased was working at that site. The accident took place when the deceased was doing that work. These facts are not seriously disputed. When such facts are admitted, the Court can draw reasonable conclusions. If a person is found working on the premises, under a contractor appointed by the principal, and dies while doing that work, the law allows the Court to infer that the work was connected to the business of the principal. It also allows the Court to infer that the deceased was working for the purpose of that work. Therefore, although the wage register was not produced, the other facts are enough for the Court to move forward and decide liability.
15. Section 12 places responsibility on the main employer. It applies when the workman is doing work which is part of the employer's trade or business. The simple test is whether the contractor doing work which the main employer would have normally done for running his business.
16. The words "trade" and "business" need a purposeful reading. The Delhi High Court in Shri Krishan gave useful clarity. It said that "business" is not limited to buying and selling. It can include any work which takes the time and attention of the employer. It can include work which the employer would have otherwise done by himself or through his own staff. If the employer gives that work to a contractor, the nature of work does not change. The Delhi High Court also explained the word "ordinarily". It means 9 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 ::: wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc "normally" or "otherwise". If the employer had not given the work to the contractor, would he have still got that work done for running his trade or business. If the answer is yes, then the work falls within Section 12. This interpretation supports the purpose of the law. The Act intends to make sure that dependents get compensation quickly. It prevents a situation where a principal escapes liability by outsourcing regular business work to a contractor.
17. The judgment in Lakshminarayan Shetty has to be understood in its own facts. The Supreme Court was dealing with a different situation about how the Act applies and when a person becomes an employee. That judgment does not say that every time work is given to a contractor, the main employer has no responsibility. The correct test is that if the work given to the contractor is work which the main employer would have done or supervised in the normal course of running his business, then Section 12 will apply. In such a case, the law treats the main employer as responsible.
18. In the present case, the Commissioner held that opponent No.1 was the principal employer. The respondents pointed out that opponent No.1 had appointed a contractor to carry out building work inside the factory. The petitioners did not dispute that such building work was being done on their premises. This shows that the work was part of the activities required for the petitioner's business. It shows that the contractor was not doing some unrelated work. He was doing work connected to the running of the petitioner's unit. The Commissioner was, therefore, 10 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 ::: wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc justified in treating opponent No.1 as the principal employer for the purpose of Section 12.
19. The Trial Court and the Commissioner both held that there was a work relationship for the purpose of Section 12. The petitioners want this Court to upset those findings. A writ court does not normally interfere with factual findings of two lower forums. Interference happens only if those findings are absurd, illegal, or based on no evidence. Here, there is enough material to support the conclusions reached by the Commissioner and the Trial Court. There are other facts which support the conclusion. So there is no reason to disturb the concurrent findings.
20. It is admitted that the deceased was doing work at the site when the wall collapsed. He died at that place and time. The accident happened when he was doing the work. The petitioners have not shown that he was doing some personal task. They have not shown that the accident had nothing to do with the work. So on simple admitted facts, the accident happened during work and because of work.
21. The respondents said that the deceased earned Rs.700 per day. The petitioners denied that amount. The Commissioner still calculated compensation. The Act allows such assessment when the exact proof of wages is not available. The Tribunal can look at the type of work, statements of dependents, and other surrounding facts. The work here was welding and construction related. There is no document from the petitioners to show a lower wage. In such a situation, the Commissioner's assessment of wages and 11 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 ::: wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc compensation is within legal limits. There is no ground to interfere with that exercise of discretion.
22. The respondents also contended that the opponents knew about the accident but still did not pay. They also said that the opponents did not pay medical or funeral expenses. The record shows that a legal notice was sent. The payment was not made. There was not even a reply. Section 4A allows penalty when there is a clear failure to meet the statutory duty. Courts also grant interest to discourage delay in payment. The Commissioner granted interest at 12 percent from the date of accident. That rate is common in such cases. The penalty portion is also justified because of the conduct stated in the pleadings and evidence.
23. When a principal gives work to a contractor and both operate at the same workplace, and the work satisfies the test under Section 12, the law can make both liable. The record shows that the contractor was doing building work inside the petitioner's premises. The deceased was working in that setup when the accident took place. The petitioner had oversight of that work. In such a situation, the law expects the principal to take responsibility along with the contractor. Joint liability, therefore, follows from the facts and the statute.
24. The writ petitions fail. I dismiss Writ Petition Nos. 9522 and 10944 of 2019. The judgment and order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Trial Court stand confirmed. The petitioners must comply with the compensation award already passed. If payment remains unpaid, the petitioners shall deposit 12 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 ::: wp9522-2019 with wp10944-2019-J.doc the awarded amount together with interest and penalty, as directed earlier, within sixty days from the date of this order.
25. No order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 13 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:31:17 :::