SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELD LTD Vs. ASHA MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. appeal is directed against the order dated 17.3.1999 in Case No. 45/WCA/88 (F), whereby the application under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with rule 12 of the Workmen's Compensation (M.P.) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), was dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), stating that the applicant, the principal, should recover the amount of compensation, etc., paid by it to the claimant, from the contractor by pursuing his remedy in the civil court.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the present appeal stated in brief are that the appellant was the principal while respondent No. 5 was his contractor within the meaning of section 12 of the Act. The deceased Ghanshyam Madan was engaged by contractor, the respondent No. 5. Ghanshyam Madan sustained fatal injuries on 12.3.88 by accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the contractor, respondent No. 5. The claimantsrespondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application purportedly under section 10 of the Act read with rule 12 of the Rules praying that the non-applicants, i.e., the appellant and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 of this appeal, may be directed to pay compensation as well as penalty. The Commissioner passed an order on 29.1.1988 allowing the applicati on of claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to and fastened the liability jointly and severally on the appellant and respondent No. 5, for payment of compensation of Rs. 67,776 besides penalty and interest.

(3.) The appellant principal then filed an application under section 12 (2) of the Act. In the said application it was stated that the appellant is entitled for reimbursement of the amount of compensation paid by the appellant to the claimants, from respondent No. 5, the contractor. It was, therefore, prayed that the said amount be recovered by issuance of RRC. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner refused to accept the said prayer and directed that the recovery of the said amount be made by the principal, the appellant by pursuing his remedy in civil court. It was observed in the impugned order that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue RRC on the application of the principal, the appellant. The application under section 12 (2) of the Act filed by appellant was, therefore, dismissed by the impugned order.