E. ABDUL JALEEL Vs. V. PAKKIRISAMY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the first respondent in W.C. No. 73 of 1988 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tiruchirapalli. The present first respondent v. Pakkirisamy was employed in a Saw Mill at Mayiladuthurai. On 18.3.1988 at about 12:30 p.m. there was an accident in the mill in which Pakkirisamy's left hand was cut and severed above the wrist by the Saw. He was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai and then to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Inspite of the treatment given, the wrist could not be attached. Thereupon, he filed W.C. No. 473 of 1988 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming Rs. 22,400/ - as damages. He impleaded the appellant herein Abdul Jaleel as the first respondent and Parameshwaran the present second respondent as second respondent in that application on the ground that the appellant was the original owner of the Saw Mill, that he joined the mill when the mill belonged to the appellant and that thereafter the appellant had leased out the mill to the second respondent.

(2.) THE appellant pleaded that since he had leased out the Saw Mill to the second respondent on 20.8.1987, he had nothing to do with the day to day working of the said mill from the day onwards. He was not the employer of the first respondent at the time of the accident. Hence, the claim for compensation against him was not maintainable.

(3.) THE only point urged before this Court by the appellant was that there was no relationship of master and servant between him and the first respondent on the date of the accident and that the liability was only on the second the averment in the application that in 1987 the appellant has leased out the mill to the second respondent and the evidence of the workman as A.W. 1 that the second respondent alone was paying him the wages and the mill was under the management of the second respondent at the time of the accident. He also pressed into service the statement of the second respondent as R.W. 1 that he did not appoint the first respondent as a worker in his mill. The contract of service was only between the appellant and the first respondent. He also pointed out that under Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, the expression "employer" means such other person while the workman is working for him. So even as per the definition of the Act, the second respondent alone was his employer.