REWA COALFIELDS LTD Vs. SARDAR TRILOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed in this appeal will also govern the disposal of Misc. (First) Appeals Nos. 36,37, 38,39,40,41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 all of 1978, against the orders dated 5-11-1977 passed by the Labour Court Shahdol in Workmen's Compensation Cases Nos. 33/77, 34/77, 35/77, 36/77 (f), 37/77(0, 38/77(f), 43/77(NF), 45/77(NF), 48/77(NF), 50/77(NF) 51/77(F), 52/77(NF), 53/77(NF) and 54/77(F), respectively.

(2.) THE facts in brief leading to these 14 appeals are that respondent No. 1 Sardar Trilok Singh had entered into a contract dated 1st January, 1971 with the appellant to transport coal belonging to the appellant company from its mining area to the works of M/S Orient Paper Mills Ltd. at Amlai on the terms and conditions embodied in the agreement Ex.D-1. The said contractor respondent No. 1 engaged some persons as workmen for loading trucks at the mining area of the appellant and for unloading the same at the work of Orient Paper Mills Amlai. On 1st February, 1971 at about 8.00 a.m. the loaded truck No. 8426 proceeded from the mining area of the appellant and the workmen were sitting over the loaded truck. When it reached near Kherha and Dhanpuri crossing, it is said that the truck over turned due to rash and negligent driving of its driver resulting into the death of some of the workmen and causing injuries to others, including the respective claimants. The workmen who had sustained personal injuries and the dependents of those who died in the accident made claim petitioner before the Labour Court for award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Contending that the truck involved in the accident belonged to the contractor Trilok Singh respondent No. 1 and the persons involved in the accident were the workmen employed by the said contractor. Subsequently an application was made on 9-5-1972 for impleading appellant as non-applicant No. 2 which was allowed by the Labour Court and the appellant were added as non-applicant No. 9 in the respective claim petition filed by the claimants.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant first contended that according to the agreement Ex. D-1 dated 1-1-1971 the liability upon the appellant could not be fastened Under Section 12 of the Act, as the appellant were not the employer nor the claimant or the deceased were the workmen of the appellant and secondly because the incident had not taken place in the mining area but very far away from the mining area where the appellant had no control. In my opinion there is no merit in this contention and, therefore, it must be rejected.