TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD Vs. PURUSHOTHOMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board under S.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 a substantial question of law as to the liability of the Board under the above Act arises for consideration. The appeal arises out of an application for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of a fatal accident resulting in the death of one Mahendran who was the son of the applicant. The applicant alleged that his son Mahendran was engaged by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for conducting 'Nerchavedi' in the Achencoil Temple under the management and administration of the Devaswom Board. While doing the work on 21-1-1981 the 'vedikutti' exploded as a consequence of which Mahendran died. The 1st opposite party died during the pendency of the application and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were impleaded as his legal representatives. The Devaswom Board was impleaded as the 5th opposite party, alleging that they are the principal employers and that the 1st opposite party was a contractor under the Board. The applicant further alleged that be is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite parties as compensation for the death of his son in the course of his employment under the 1st opposite party. The claim is made against the Board also on the ground that they are the principal employers who are bound to pay the compensation.

(2.) The 2nd opposite party filed a written statement contending that he had nothing to do with the business of Nerchavedi and that he is only a sweeper in the Devaswom. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 who are the legal representatives of the 1st opposite party contended that the 1st opposite party had obtained the right to conduct Nerchavedi in the premises of the Achencoil temple from the Devaswom for an amount of Rs. 600/-, that he had not engaged Mahendran for the above work and that the 1st opposite party was himself doing it. They further pleaded that Mahendran died while he was doing gambling near the vedikutti and not while be was in the employment of the 1st opposite party. The Devaswom Board filed a written statement pleading that the right to conduct Nerchavedi in the temple for the year 1980-81 was put on auction and the 1st opposite party being the highest bidder was allowed to do the business in the premises of the temple. They contended that the business is his own and not a part of the trade or business of the Board and that they are not liable under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. They further contended that they are not the principal employers as the conducting of Nerchavedi is not part of their trade or business and S.12 of the Act has no application to the facts of the case.

(3.) By the impugned order the Commissioner held that the deceased Mahendran was a workman of the 1st opposite party and that he died during the course of employment under the 1st opposite party. He also held that opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be made liable as they are only the legal representatives of the 1st opposite party and there is no provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act to fasten a liability under the above Act on the legal representatives. It was also held that the Board is liable as the principal employer to pay compensation to the applicant for the death of Mahendran as the performance of the Nerchavedi is an integral part of the day to day affairs and festivals in the Achencoil temple. It was also held that the 2nd opposite party was an employee of the Board and had nothing to do with the Nerchavedi. He fixed the compensation at Rs. 18,000/- on the basis of the wages of Mahendran and directed the Devaswom Board to pay the above amount and exonerated all other parties from any liability.