Karnataka High Court
Smt Unnamalai vs The Proprietor on 23 September, 2022
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
MFA No. 4324 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4324 OF 2013 (WC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. UNNAMALAI
W/O LATE NADAGOUNDER
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O NATYAR, MANIYARGOUNDER
KARUNDARA TALUK
SELAM DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PROPRIETOR
M/S MAVINAKODIGE ESTATE
THOTAUR VILLAGE
KALASA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT
Digitally
signed by 2. THE MANAGER
PANKAJA S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Location: CITY BRANCH, K N R ROAD
High Court of MANGALORE- 577 120
Karnataka
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
MFA FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WC ACT AGAINST THE ORDER
DT. 21.2.2013 PASSED IN WCA(F).NO. 25/2002 ON THE FILE
OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION NO.2,
-2-
MFA No. 4324 of 2013
CHIKMAGALUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The Commissioner has rejected the claim of the widow of the workman on the ground that the contractor through whom the workman was alleged to have been employed had not been impleaded and therefore, the claim could not be entertained.
2. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the disposal of claim petition No.KA.PA.KA.(F) 25/2002 dated 21.02.2013 is in accordance with the terms of remand order of this court dated 13.12.2008?"
3. In addition, in my view, the following substantial question of law would also arise for consideration:
Whether the Commissioner could have dismissed the claim of the workman when the compliant itself indicated that the deceased was engaged through a sub contractor and the policy of -3- MFA No. 4324 of 2013 insurance relating to employee's liability was in respect 40 other labourers?
4. In my view, it would be appropriate to decide the second question of law first and if this is held in favour of the claimant, the other question would become unnecessary.
5. It is not in dispute that a complaint was lodged by the Manager Sri Padmaraj Salian of the first respondent - Estate immediately after the occurrence of the accident and in the said complaint, it was clearly stated that the deceased was engaged by the sub contractor namely Balehole Annappa Mestri to work in the Estate of the first respondent along with 10 other labourers. It is, therefore, clear that the first respondent herein was essentially the principal employer as per the averment in the complaint. By virtue of this averment in the complaint, as the first respondent is the principal employer, the liability under Section 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 on the principal employer would be applicable and consequently, the first respondent would be liable for compensation for the death of the workman.
-4-MFA No. 4324 of 2013
6. It is not in dispute that the workman was killed while he was discharging the work of the first respondent in the Estate of the first respondent. It is, therefore, clear that the death occurred during the course of employment. Merely because the workman was employed through a contractor, that would not absolve the principal employer i.e., the first respondent of liability.
7. It is also be stated here that the insurance policy which is produced as Ex.P10 indicated that the first respondent had taken out the insurance policy to cover the liability under the Employee's Compensation Act in respect of 1 clerical staff, 1 field labour supervisor and 40 other labourers. Since the policy is applicable to all 40 labourers working in the Estate of the first respondent, the Insurer, as a consequence, would be liable to indemnify the first respondent and pay the compensation. The Commissioner, before remand, had determined that the legal representatives of the deceased were entitled for compensation of Rs.1,84,170/- along with interest as prescribed in the statute.
-5-MFA No. 4324 of 2013
8. In my view, the impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the claimant.
9. It is hereby ordered that the Insurer shall pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.1,84,170/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the expiry of one month from the date of the accident, as already determined by the Commissioner on the earlier occasion. The appeal is thus allowed.
SD/-
JUDGE PKS CT:AN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 15