ARULMIGU KAPALEESWARAR TEMPLE MADRAS 4 Vs. MALLIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the order of the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation-I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Madras, awarding a compensation of Rs. 67,200 to the first respondent herein, whose son by name Ramu died in an accident, while he was engaged in the dismantling of the illumination arrangements in the temple tower.

(2.) THE appellant temple had asked the second respondent herein, who is an electrical contractor, for illumination of Kapaleeswarar temple Tower during the festival occasion and after the festival was over, on 18. 5. 1992, when the deceased Ramu was attending the dismantling work in the tower on the instruction of the second respondent, he fell down from the tower and succumbed to the injuries. THErefore, his mother, the first respondent herein, filed the petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation against the temple and the contractor claiming compensation for the death of her son. THE Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation accepting the claim of the first respondent herein awarded the compensation of rs. 67,200 payable by the appellant herein the temple. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would contend that when the Commissioner has accepted that the contract was for the purpose of trade or business, automatically, it has to be accepted that the work attended by the deceased was part of the business or trade of the principal but, in this case, after applying Sec. 12 (1) of the Act, the Commissioner has excluded Sec. 12 (2) of the Act from its applicability, which, according to the learned counsel is an inconsistent finding and therefore the indemnity under sec. 12 (2) of the Act has to be extended to the principal employer. Of the above five ingredients, laid down by this Court in the case cited above, there is subtle difference between the condition Nos. 2 and 3. Condition No. 2 is that the contract must have been for the purpose of trade or business of the Principal employer and Condition No. 3 is that the work done by the deceased at the time of the accident must form part of the principal's trade or business. In this case. even though the illumination work of the temple tower is not the trade or business of the temple, the contractor was compelled to attend to this illumination work because the contract for the decoration of the marriage hall was accepted, subject to this condition. THErefore, the contract for the performance of the illumination of the tower has become the business contract. But the illumination of the temple tower, as mentioned above, is not connected with the business. THEre may be a contract during the course of the business for performing certain things not connected with the business. For the indemnity of the principal employer, not only the contract must have been in the course of the trade or business, but the work entrusted also must relate to the trade or business. But, in this case, even though the contract as in the course of business, the work performed by the deceased viz. , dismantling the electrical installation of the temple tower was not connected with the trade or business of the temple. THErefore, applying this distinction, the Commissioner has found that the second respondent was not bound to indemnify of the temple. I find that the distinction made by the Commissioner is well-reasoned and acceptable. THErefore, the appellant temple cannot claim the benefit to be indemnified under Sec. 12 (2) of the Act.