GENERAL MANAGER KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION (KMF) CATTLE FEEDS DEPARTMENT PASHU AAHARA MISHRANA. KARKANE RAJANAKUNTE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT Vs. SRI. B.K. SHIRVRAJU S/O SRI.KALLESHAPPA HADIGENAHALLI RAJANGUNTE POST YOLAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred challenging the order passed by the Commissioner Workmens' Compensation awarding compensation in a stun of Rs. 3,81,222/ - and apportioning the same in the ratio 30:70 on the appellant and second respondent

(2.) THE Workman B.K.Shivaraju was working as a contract labourer with Subhadeva. The appellant herein availed the services of these contract laboure Rs. On 09.07.2002 at about 6:45 a.m. when the workman was performing his functions assigned to him, he fell on a machine under operation from a height of 10,15 feet due to which his right leg was cut off. He filed a petition under the provisions of the Workmen' Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation. The appellant contended that he was not employed under him, but he was employed by the contractor. In the agreement entered into between him and the contract employer, clause (9) makes it clear, it is the contract employer who has to have entire expenses payable under the provisions of the Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. After enquiry, the Commissioner held that a sum of Rs. 3,81,222/ - is the compensation liable to be paid to the workman by apportioning the said amount in the ratio 70:30 by its order dated 12.06.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, both the workman as well as the appellant herein have preferred appeal, the workman sought for enhancement of compensation in M.F.A.No 5088/2009, which came to be dismissed for non -prosecution on 07.02.2011. In this appeal the appellant is assailing the impugned order insofar as foisting 30% of the liability on them.

(3.) THIS statutory right conferred on the principal is given effect to by introducing clause (9) in the agreement entered into between toe parties. Therefore, the principal employer i.e., the appellant has to pay compensation and the employer shall indemnify the appellant.