CHAIRMAN GOGTE COLLEGE OF COMMERCE Vs. SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14-6-2002 passed in WCA/sr-199/01 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE facts in brief are as follows: the appellant herein had entrusted the construction work of additional rooms in the comer open area of Gogte College of Commerce main building to the respondent 2 herein who is a contractor, and an agreement dated 22-9-1999 was also entered into between them The respondent 1 was engaged for doing centering work. On 12-11-1999 at about 4. 30 p. m. while the respondent 1 was doing centering work, the ladder on which he was standing broke and he fell down and as a result of that he sustained fracture of left patella and fracture of left colles's and other injuries. The respondent 1 herein filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- against the appellant herein who is the principal employer and respondent 2 who is the contractor, for the injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment. 2-A. The appellant herein resisted the said application denying the averments made in the application and contending that the construction work in the premises of Gogte College of Commerce, Belgaum was entrusted to the respondent 2 herein and that an agreement dated 22-2-1999 was entered into between them and as per the terms of the said agreement, it is the sole responsibility of the respondent 2 to pay compensation to his workmen/employees, as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short, 'the Act'), for any injuries caused to them. The appellant herein also contended that the respondent 1 was not employed by him for construction work and no relationship of employer and the employee exists between him and the respondent 1 and hence he is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent 1.

(3.) THE respondent 2 herein filed his objections denying the averments made in the application and contending that the appellant herein is the principal employer and the owner of the building and that he took the construction work from the appellant herein under an agreement and that the construction work was carried out by him under the total control observation and supervision of appellant herein who is the principal employer. He has also contended that the centering work of the building was entrusted by him to one Sri Balu Babu Kundoskop who is a sub-contractor and that they have entered into an agreement dated 24-10-1999 and that as per the terms of the said agreement the said sub-contractor is solely responsible for payment of compensation to his workers or employees as per the provisions of the Act for any injuries caused to them and that the respondent 1 herein was under the control and direct supervision of the sub-contractor and therefore the said sub-contractor is liable to pay the compensation to the respondent 1 herein. He has also contended that he had not employed the respondent 1 herein for construction work and there is no relationship of employer and the employee between him and the respondent 1 and hence he is not liable to pay any compensation and that if it is held that the respondent 1/applicant is entitled for any compensation, the liability may be saddled on the principal employer and the sub-contractor Kundoskop.