Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Excise Superintendents vs Jama Ramulamma And Anr. on 28 October, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)ALD90
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order, dated 12.11.1998, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad (Twin Cities) (for short 'the Commissioner') in W.C. Case No. 357 of 1996.
2. The first respondent filed the claim stating that her husband by name, Jama Chandraiah, was a toddy tapper and was engaged by the second respondent, the President, Tappers Co-operative Society, Khammam, to tap the toddy trees. It is stated that during the course of employment, he fell down from a tree on 1.5.1996 and died on 9.8.1996 after prolonged ailment. She contended that the appellant herein is the principal employer on account of the fact that he issues the licence and the activity of tapping is controlled and overseen by the appellant.
3. The second respondent remained ex parte. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit denying its liability. It was pleaded that there did not exist any relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the appellant and that he is not liable to pay compensation. Through the order under appeal, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,507/- and directed the appellant herein to pay that amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submits that the deceased was a toddy tapper engaged by the second respondent and that the employer has absolutely no relationship with, or control over the deceased. It is also his contention that the appellant cannot be treated even as the principal employer as contemplated under Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act'), since there is no contract within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act.
5. Learned Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant is the statutory agency to grant licence and to collect rentals for permitting tapping of trees and in that view of the matter, he deserves to be treated as a principal employer under Section 12 of the Act.
6. In support of her claim, the first respondent examined P.Ws.l to 3 and filed Exs.P.l to P.5. On behalf of the appellant, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.R.l to R.5 were marked.
7. The husband of the first respondent died on 9.8.1996, on account of an accidental fall from a toddy tree on 1.5.1996. It was pleaded that the appellant was engaged by the second respondent. The Commissioner did not make any endeavour to ascertain the relationship of the deceased with the second respondent. The first respondent pleaded that the engagement of the deceased by the second respondent was on behalf of the appellant. The effort was to bring the case within the purview of Section 12 of the Act.
8. It is true that the Act provides for payment of compensation to workmen in the event of death or injury to the workmen not only by the person, who directly employed such employees, but also by those for whose purpose or benefit the employee was working. Section 12 covers the second category of cases. The word 'employer' is defined in very wider terms under Section 2(e) of the Act. However, before treating an individual or agency as an employer in the context of the Act, it has to be seen as to whether the workman has worked for the benefit of such person or agency at all. Once it is established that the employee has worked for the benefit of an individual or agency, the fact that there did not exist any contract of employer and employee virtually becomes secondary. In the present case, even if the facts borne out by the record are taken on their face value, it is too difficult to discern such a relationship between the deceased and the appellant.
9. The only factor, that is taken note of to bring about such a relationship, is that the first respondent is a licensor and in fact collects the rentals for permitting the tapping of the trees. These are the statutory and sovereign functions discharged by and on behalf of the State. Mere grant of licence or collection of rent or lease amount for permitting an individual to undertake a particular activity, does not by itself bring about the relationship of employer and employee. If the contention of the first respondent is to be accepted, it may result in disastrous consequences, wherein the licensees or lessees under various enactments be it in the fields of" Excise, Mines and Geology, Agriculture, Fisheries, have to be treated as employees of the Government. This was never the purport of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
10. Therefore, the order under appeal, insofar it held the appellant herein as liable to pay the compensation, is set aside, and the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. It is however left open to the first respondent to work out her remedies against the Second respondent in accordance with law.