Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines "agent" as a person employed to d3 any act or to represent another in dealing with third person, the person for whom such act is done, or is so represented is called the "prin- cipal". Section 184 of the said Act further provides that as between principal and the third person any person may become an agent so as to be responsible to his principal. Now it is to be understood that the agent has an identity distinct from his principal in one sense and a fictional identity with his principal in the other. The agreement nowhere amalgamates the identity of the electrical contractor with that of the principal (C.E.S.C) by undertaking to provide adequate supervision for the purposes of the Act, on behalf of the C.E.S.C. The agreement no doubt provides that the electrical contractor would provide adequate supervision while carrying on with the work, the purpose dominant is to safeguard obtaining quality work and safety safeguards, and to conform to the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act. To the Division Bench of the High Court it was obvious that the Regional Director of the E.S.I.C. had nowhere found that there was actual supervision, either by the C.E.S.C or its duly appointed agents, over works which were performed by the employees of the electrical contractors. All that has been found is that the said works on completion were checked by the C.E.S.C. and then accepted. Checking of work after the same is completed and supervision of work while in progress is not the same. These have different perceptions. Checking of work on its completion is an activity, the purpose of which is to finally accept or reject the work, on the touch- stone of job specifications. Thereafter, if accepted, it has to be paid for. Undisputably electrical contractors had to be paid on the acceptance of the work. This step by no means is Supervision exercised. Neither can it be the terminating point of an agency when the interests of the so called principal and the so called agent become business-like. Besides, the High Court has found that the work done by employees was under the exclusive supervision of the elec- trical contractors or competent supervisors engaged by them trader the terms of the contract and the licence. By neces- sary implication supervision by the C.E.S.C. or its agents stood excluded. Supervision rested with persons holding valid certificates of competency for which a register of supervision was required under the licence to be maintained. Under the contracts, the electrical contractors cannot in one breath be termed as agents of the C.E.S.C., undertaking supervision of the work of their employees and innately under the licence to have beforehand delegated that function to the holder of the certificate of competency. Thus we hold that on the terms of the contract read with or without the terms of the licence, no such agency, factually or legally, stood created on behalf of the C.E.S.C. in favour of the electrical contractors, and none could be, as 'hat would violate the statutory scheme of distinction well marked under Section 2(a) of the Act. The supervision taken was to fulfil a contractual obligation simplicitor and we leave it at the level.