DEPUTY EX. ENGINEER Vs. ZAVERBHAI VAGHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms.Naynaben K. Gadhvi for the appellant, learned advocate Mr.Pranav U. Raval on behalf of learned advocate Mr.Sunil C. Patel for respondent no.2. Perused the record.

(2.) The appellant herein is original opponent no.1 in Workmen's Compensation (Fatal) Case No.6 of 1993 before the Labour Court and Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act at Bhavnagar. Such application was preferred by the respondent no.1 herein claiming compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act for accidental death of Zeverbhai Vaghabhai Koli, since, they are legal heirs and dependents of such victim. It is undisputed fact that on 24.04.1992 when deceased victim was working for opponents, he fall down in well and during treatment he died because of injuries received by him during the course of his employment. Therefore, his legal heirs and dependents have claimed compensation as per the Workmen's Compensation Act contending that deceased was getting Rs.900/- as monthly salary and since, he died during course of employment, they are entitled to Rs.79,693.20/- as compensation. Such application was resisted by all the opponents including present opponent. However, at present, we are concerned with the defence by the present appellant being opponent no.1 only because rest of the opponents have not challenged the impugned award. The appellant herein has challenged the impugned award dated 19.07.2006 by Labour Court and Ex-officio Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation at Bhavnagar whereby opponents no.1 and 2 i.e. present appellant and respondent no.2 herein are directed to pay an amount of Rs.78,088/- towards compensation with 6% interest and 50% penalty being Rs.39,044/- to the claimants jointly and severally. However, considering the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act and contract between the original opponents, the Commissioner has made it clear that appellant can recover the amount of compensation from the respondent no.6 being original opponent no.2. So far as opponent no.1 is concerned, it is Government Authority, since, its Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, solely managed by the State Government whereas opponent no.2 - Contractor who has been awarded some work by the respondent no.1 for benefit of respondent no.3 namely Lakhanaka Gram Panchyat. In view of such situation, it is contended by the appellant that in fact they are only providing funds to opponent no.3 - Panchayat for several work but otherwise such work was to be carried out by the opponent no.3 - Panchyat and therefore, contract of such work was assigned to opponent no.2 - contractor by the Panchayat and deceased victim was employed by such contractor. Thereby, it is contended by the appellant that they were not in picture for work to be carried out by the contractor and therefore, they cannot to be held responsible to pay the compensation to the person engaged by contractor, since they are not principle employer but principle employer is opponent no.2 Panchayat only. In support of such statement appellant is mainly relying upon tender-cum-contract alleged to be executed between the opponent no.2 and 3, it is contended by the appellant, relying upon such tender- cum-contract, more particularly Clause 37, (Copy of such tender-cum-contract for work is produced at Exh.48) on internal page no.16 which reads as under:-

(3.) In any case Clauses 37 and 37 A is confirming of the statutory provisions in form of section 12 of workmen compensation Act which was in force at the relevant time. Section 12 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 makes it clear that :-