Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The only object behind the provisions of Section appears to be to secure speedy payment of compensation resulting from injuries to a workman. The legislature intended to make doubly sure payment of such compensation to the workman, or to his dependants in the event of his death, as it could not exclude the possibility of the contractor being in some cases a man of straw, whose straitened circumstances might jeopardise the changes of recovery of such compensation. If, therefore, a restricted meaning is given to the word "business" so as to imply an activity with the object of earning profit only, the object behind Section 12 is likely to be defeated. Not only to speak of the Government performing its various functions of a welfare State, even many other persons may have to be kept out of the purview of Section 12 by assigning such a limited meaning to the word "business" occurring in it. Such an interpretation would absolve from liability to pay compensation even a person who would appoint a contractor for building his residential house, as building one's residential house cannot be said to have the object of earning profit or gain behind it. It cannot, as such, be said to partake of "business or trade" in commercial sense. Merely because the word "business" is clubbed with the word "trade" in Section 12, it should not be inferred that it has been used in simple commercial sense. Both these words have to be read disjunctively and rot conjunctively. Similarly, the doctrine of immunity attached to sovereign acts of State cannot be extended to acts like constructing roads or bridges, as such acts are not of such a nature as cannot be done by a private person. Viewed thus, the word "business" occurring in Section 12 has to be given an extended meaning, so as to include even an activity which engages time, attention, or labour as a principal serious concern or interest of the Government or an individual without an element of profit in it. It is one of the meanings given to the word "business" in dictionary. (See Webster's New International Dictionary, Vol. I, Ed. 1926). Construction of roads being one of the principal concerns of the Public Works Department of the Government inviting its serious attention, it is "business" within the meaning of Section 12 and the appellant was thus the principal employer vis-a-vis the deceased labourers.‖ (Emphasis supplied)

13. For the expeditious grant of compensation in the event of such accidents taking place in favour of the victim's dependent members, this act was enacted and a hyper technical interpretation of the statute would not only defeat the purpose of the said Act but would be adding insult to injury.........‖ (Emphasis supplied)

17. In Raj Pal Saini v. Kamla, (2016) 151 FLR 302, a mistry suffered an electric shock during the construction of second floor of a building. The owner of the building contested the claim on the ground that he had engaged the contractor who in turn had engaged the employee. Following Govind Goenka (supra), this Court held the owner liable to pay compensation under Section 12 of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

xxx xxx xxx
13. However, what is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Chandrukar is that the appellants were constructing the shopping complex on their own land and it was not their regular trade or business to do construction work by purchasing different plots and they were not in any way builders by profession. To accept the argument would tantamount to not only negativing the intention of the Legislature behind the provision but to adding something to the provisions of Section 12 which states that it must be in the course of trade or business of the person referred to as the principal who contracts with any other person. A case wherein a person is building his own house on his land or on land possessed by him has engaged an contractor may not be covered but where a person is constructing a building either for constructing and disposing of and selling residential flats or for constructing a market complex for selling the shops or leasing them out then it would be difficult to comprehend that it was not in the course of his trade or business. In other words, it is necessary to find that it is his regular business to purchase plots and construct buildings thereon. This would mean adding the word "regular" to the provision of Section 12 which is against all the principles of interpretation. The Legislature is presumed to know its business well and when the Legislature has not used the words as "in the course of regular trade or business" it is not possible to accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and to hold that since it was not a regular business of the appellants to construct shopping complex or buildings, they are not in the position of the principal employers.
(a) any building which is designed to be or is or has been more than one storey in height above the ground or twelve feet or more from the ground level to the apex of the roof; "

A reading of the said provision would show that the person employed in a construction of any building will come within the meaning of 'employee' as defined under Section 2(1)(dd) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. As per the list of employees given in clause (viii) of Schedule II, I am of the opinion, even a person, who works in the house of an individual, if sustains injuries during the course of said employment, he is entitled for compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, the question as to whether the deceased was working in the Kalyana Mandapam or in the house of the appellant is totally immaterial after the omission of Section 2(1)(n) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant reported in (2003) 9 SCC 190 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.