B T SHIPPING LONDON LIMITED Vs. ARATI NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed by the 2nd Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Mumbai on 4-11-97 in Application No. (W. C. A.) 191/a-50 of 1997 whereby he directed the petitioners to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 27,00,635/- in the Court is impugned by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE 1st petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of England and is based in the United Kingdom. The 2nd petitioner is an Indian company which operates as an agent on behalf of various shipping companies including the company known as B. T. Fleet Personnel Ltd. , (Burmuda ). The 1st respondent is the widow of Shri Shankara Raman Narayanan who was employed by B. T. Fleet Personnel Ltd. , through 2nd petitioner as their managers. The employee died during accident on board m. v. Nautilus on 9-8-96. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents are the father, mother and elder sister of the deceased employee. The said Narayanan was employed in accordance with the service conditions which have been annexed by the petitioners as Exhibit C pages 47 to 67 of the paper book. It is the case of the petitioners that the accident in which the employee died on 9-6-96 was not caused due to any fault of the employer despite that they took all necessary steps to provide for the heirs of the deceased and accordingly on 25-2-1997 the 2nd petitioner in their capacity as agents of B. T. Fleet Personnel Ltd. , (Burmuda) deposited a sum of Rs. 34, 13,330/- in the Court of Workmens compensation. This sum of Rs. 34,13,330/- included the compensation amounting to Rs. 33,18,240/- being the equivalent of U. S. $ 93,000/-, and a sum of Rs. 95,050/- equivalent to U. S. $ 2,661,96 towards balance wages. The compensation to the tune of U. S. $ 93, 000/- was arrived at, according to the petitioners, by adopting the beneficial interpretation of the appointment letter and service conditions applicable to deceased employee. On 24-4-97 the 1st respondent i. e. widow of the deceased employee made an application seeking leave to withdraw the amount deposited by the employer. She also disclosed the name of the father, mother and sister of the deceased without disputing the amount deposited by the employer. The father, mother and sister of the deceased employee who are respondents 2, 3 and 4 respectively herein made an application on 28-4-97 before the concerned Workmens Compensation Commissioner stating that the 4th respondent i. e. the sister was only entitled to receive the full amount deposited by the employer to the exclusion of all others including the widow of the deceased. Thereafter on 4-9-97 the father, mother and sister of the deceased employee made further application seeking determination of increased compensation under section 22-A of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short Act of 1923 ). Two separate replies were filed one by the 1st petitioner and the other by the 2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner denied that they were employer of the deceased or in any manner connected with the matter. In the reply filed by the 2nd petitioner, justification of depositing the amount to the tune of Rs. 34, 13,330/- was given stating that the amount so deposited is far larger than is payable. The learned Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation after hearing the parties passed the impugned order directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 27,00,635/- giving rise to the present writ petition.

(3.) MR. Kotwal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned order by making two-fold submission: (i) that the Workmens Compensation Commissioner has no jurisdiction in the matter since the Workmans Compensation Act, 1923 itself was not application in the facts of the case because the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (1) (n) of the said Act and (ii) even if the Workmans Compensation Act is held to be applicable and that the Workmans Compensation Commissioner is held to have jurisdiction, he could not have ordered deposit of amount in exercise of his power under section 22-A exceeding the compensation prescribed under the Act.