BIL METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. RAMESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 25.9.2007 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act at Vadodara in Workmen's Compensation Application No.77 of 1999. Such claim petition was filed by respondent No.1 as injured workman against the present appellant as opponent No.2, for which the applicant was working through its contractor, being original opponent No.1, who is respondent No.2 herein. Such contractor, namely V. Vijayan, Proprietor of Getco Engineers has chosen to remain absent throughout the proceedings before the Trial Court so also in this appeal.

(2.) By the impugned judgment, the Commissioner has awarded an amount of Rs.1,58,615.43 ps. as compensation with 12% interest and 25% penalty to be recovered from both the opponents jointly and severally. The claimant has claimed compensation of Rs.2,44,023.75 ps. for amputation of four fingers of his right hand. When he was an employee of opponent No.1 contractor, he was repairing a machinery of the present appellant. Therefore, basic contention in this appeal by the appellant is to the effect that since the injured claimant was not in its employment and pay -roll, they cannot be held liable and responsible to pay compensation as per the impugned judgment. To substantiate their claim or their submission, the appellant is relying upon commentary of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by Suranjan Chakraverti in its Fourth Edition by The Law Book Company (P) Ltd., wherein on page 366, relating to principle embodied in the provisions of Section 12, it is stated under the heading of 'Report of Select Committee', as under: -

(3.) However, it cannot be ignored that in the same commentary, statement of objects and reasons for such Act as published in Gazette of India dated 16.9.1992, at page 314 -316 reads as under: -