KUMAR MANGALAM Vs. CHIEF MANAGER,TELECOM GUJARAT CIRCLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms. Mamta R. Vyas for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Joy Mathew for the respondents No.1 and 2. When rest of the respondents are deleted from the array of causetitle, and more particularly, when impugned award by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, has been deposited by the appellant and disbursed in favour of the deleted claimant being respondent No.3 herein, though it is observed in order dated 18.6.2018 that appeal needs to be dismissed as it has become infructous, learned advocate Ms. Vyas has vehemently argued the matter to point out that though appellant has deposited the amount, the appellant has as back as on 17.1.2005, while depositing the amount as per the award, categorically disclosed before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act and Labour Court at Bhavnagar in Workman Fatal Case No.30 of 1998 that such deposit is with objection and it shall be subject to result of such appeal. In view of such disclosure, instead of dismissing the appeal on technical ground, it requires to be considered on its own merits.

(2.) The appellant herein is original opponent No.3 in above-referred case being Workman Fatal Case No.30 of 1998 before the Commissioner. Such application was preferred by legal heirs of one Kantibhai Bhimabhai when he died on 30.9.1996 because of accident arising out of and during the course of his employment. It is undisputed fact that the work, during the course of which the victim had received injuries and died, was pertaining to respondents No.1 and 2. However, it is also undisputed fact that respondents No.1 and 2 had assigned such work on contract basis to the present appellant. Therefore, by all means, if respondents No.1 and 2 are principal employers, then, respondent No.3 would be contractor - cum - employer of the workman. Therefore, at the most, the Commissioner may ask the principal employers to initially pay the compensation, but with a direction that principal employers can recover such amount, if any paid to the claimants, from the actual contractor, who has employed the workman.

(3.) Whereas, the appellant has contended that, factually, though respondents No.1 and 2 had assigned a contract to them, they have not employed the deceased victim and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the victim. The appellant has submitted that, in fact, they have assigned the work to one M/s. Telelink and therefore, if at all anybody is liable to pay compensation to the victim of incident, then, it is such company, namely, M/s. Telelink, who had engaged the deceased employee for carrying out certain work. The record and proceeding shows that for the purpose, in fact, claimants have as back as on 2.9.1998 submitted an application at Exh.8 before the Commissioner, praying to join such company, namely, M/s. Telelink as opponent. In such application, in fact, the appellant has relied upon the information parted with by the present appellant that they have assigned the work to such M/s. Telelink, though appellant has contended that they have not engaged deceased Kantibhai Bhimabhai in their company. Unfortunately, the Commissioner has by its reasoned order dated 17.6.2002 rejected the application at Exh.8 by the original claimant, requesting to join said M/s. Telelink as opponent for the reasons assigned in such detailed order. It is undisputed fact that such order has not been challenged by anyone, including the present appellant and therefore, ultimately, from available evidence before the Commissioner, when Commissioner has came to the conclusion that victim - Kantibhai Bhimabhai has received fatal injuries while working on the project of respondents No.1 and 2 and when it is admitted position that respondents No.1 and 2 have assigned the work on contract basis to present appellant, the Commissioner has awarded the compensation by directing the present appellant to pay Rs.2,07,980/- with 12% interest to the claimant.