N PAUL Vs. RAM KALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated November 6, 1975, of Shri R. N. Mehrotra, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, awarding Rs. 8,000 as compensation on account of death of Shri Keshav Ram.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as put up before the said authority under the said Act were that Keshav Ram was in employment of the appellant and while performing his duties with the appellant, he suffered injuries in an accident on February 17, 1969, and succumbed to his said injuries on February 22, 1969. He had left behind Smt. Ram Kali, his widow, two sons, namely, Suraj Prakash and Ravinder and one daughter named Lali. An amount of Rs. 50,000 was claimed as compensation. The deceased was working as a 'jamadar' and was employed in the construction work regarding maintenance of roads and electrical fittings at Palam Airport. On the day of accident, it is alleged that he was supervising the labour at work when he was struck by a nozzle of the fire-brigade at the Palam Airport which fire-brigade had been requisitioned for the purpose of digging out so that a road could be constructed as some underground cable was to be laid. He was earning Rs. 300 per mensem as monthly wages at the time he died. The appellant opposed this petition pleading that, in fact, the deceased was not an employee of the appellant and the appellant was a registered contractor and had been allotted the contract by the C. P. W. D. for laying cables at the Palam Airport and there were existing some G. I. pipes already laid by C. P. W. D. and those cables had to be crossed through the said pipes and the appellant had approached the authorities concerned for arranging to remove the earth and the mud blocked in those pipes so that the cables could be laid after clearance of the pipes and it was alleged that it was the C. P. W. D. which had requisitioned the services of the fire-brigade to flush the pipes with water pressure to clear mud and earth and the said fire brigade had brought along with it certain firemen to do the operation and the appellant had nothing to do with the said operation of clearing the pipes which was the duty of the C. P. W. D. So, it was pleaded that there arose no liability of the appellant for the accident which was caused to Keshav Ram being struck by the nozzle of fire-brigade which resulted in his death. The following issues were framed :

(3.) IN appeal, the findings of the Competent Authority with regard to issues Nos. 1 and 2 have been challenged pleading that there was no sufficient evidence to hold that the deceased was in employment of the appellant and that he had suffered the injuries while performing the duties assigned to him by the appellant. Apart from examining the claimant herself, Hoshiar Singh and Jhumman were also examined to prove that the deceased was working with the appellant. They also deposed regarding the accident taking place which resulted in the death of Keshav Ram. The appellant had examined a few witnesses including Jagmohan Singh, partner of the appellant. He deposed that the deceased was not an employee of the appellant. He admitted that the work of laying the cables was at a place which was not accessible to all and sundry and only the contractor and his employees and the officials of the airport could come. He admitted that the books of account were being maintained regularly but he had not brought the books of account to show that the deceased was not being account to show that the deceased was not being paid any salary by the appellant. The appellant had placed reliance on Exhibit R. W. 5-1, the muster roll, which did not include the name of the deceased. The competent authority had drawn an adverse inference against the appellant that if the books of account had been produced they would have shown that the deceased was employed with the appellant at the relevant time and, as far as the muster roll is concerned it is not necessary that the name of the deceased should have figured in the said muster roll because the case of the claimant was that Keshav Ram was working as Jamadar (Supervisor) with the appellant. Jamadar need not be a muster roll employee. A plea was also taken before the competent authority that in case Keshav Ram was employee of the appellant and had died during the course of his employment in the work which was being done for the Government, the Government would not have released the payment to the appellant till the claim of the heirs of the deceased had been settled. I do not think that mere fact that the appellant had been able to get the payment from the Government regarding his dues would lead to any inference that Keshav Ram deceased was not working with the appellant and was not performing the duties for the appellant at the spot when he met with the accident.