BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD Vs. BHAGYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under S.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

(2.) One George was an employee of Kaveri Structurals, Structural Engineers, Thiruchirapalli, i.e., respondent 2, in this appeal. The appellant Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., wanted to get a building constructed and entered into a contract with respondent 2 for that purpose. While the building was in the course of construction, George touched a live electric wira and died the next day. Bhagyam, his mother, filed a claim in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kolar Dist (hereinafter referred to as the Court), in Case No.FC.10 of 1969 as against the appellant and respondent 2. The appellant contended that George was not at. all a workman for whose injuries the appellant was liable to compensate. Respondent 2 contended that the 'principal' was the appellant and he was liable to compensate. It so happened that when the proceedings were pending in the Court, Bhagyam expired and one Thangaraj, who is new respondent 1, got himself impleaded as the legal representative of Bhagyam on the ground that he was her brother. The appellant and respondent 2 contended that Thangaraj could not be impleaded as legal representative of Bhagyam and the Court had no jurisdiction to decide whether he was or not a legal representative of Bhagyam. The Court held that the appellant was liable to pay compensation as per Schedule-I to the Art in view of S.12(1) of the Act and that Thangaraj, respondent 1, was the legal representative of Bhagyam and he was entitled to receive the commensatioin. It directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.4,800 within two months from the date of its judgment. It is this judgment that is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) It is an undisputed fact that George was not employed by the appellant. He was an employee of respondent 2. One of the contentions of respondent 2 was that George was not a workman employed, by them, but he had taken a sub-contract from them. That contention has been negatived by the Court and there is no material before us to hold that that contention of respondent 2 is substantiated. Another undisputed fact is that the appellant had entered into a contract with respondent 2 for the construction of a buiding of which they were in need, and respondent 2 were constructing that building during the course of which construction, George sustained a shock as he happened to touch a live electric wire and succumbed to that shock the next day.