M.K.RATHEESH BABU Vs. NASEEMA K.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first opposite party in E.C.C.No.35/2016, on the files of the Court of the Industrial Tribunal & Employees' Compensation Commissioner, Kokhikode ('compensation commissioner' for short), has filed this appeal impugning the final order of the said Court, as per which, an amount of Rs.6,39,200/-, along with 12% interest, has been awarded to respondents 1,2 and 3 herein, who are the legal heirs of deceased Sri.Haris, who is stated to have died while being employed by the appellant in the construction of his new house.

(2.) The appellant contends that deceased Sri.Haris was not his employee and that the work of construction of his house had been fully contracted to the 4th respondent herein/2nd opposite party and that late Sri.Haris was, in fact, employed by him. The appellant says that, the fact that the 4 th respondent herein was given the contract to construct his house is evident from Exts.B1 and B2 bank accounts, which shows part payments for the said construction having been paid to him; and therefore, that the Compensation Commissioner is in error in having mulcted him with the entire liability even without adverting to the impact of Section 12 of the Employees' Compensation Act ,1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

(3.) The appellant has a further case that since the 2 nd opposite party/4th respondent herein took a contention before the Compensation Commissioner that late Sri.Haris was not employed by him but that he himself was a contractor entrusted with the carpentry and concreting work in the on-going construction, he cannot even construed to be his employee but only an independent contractor. The appellant submits that, however, these aspects have not been considered by the Compensation Commissioner and he thus prays that this appeal be allowed.