P K SUKLA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, petitioner has prayed for the relief for quashment of order, P1, passed by the Executive Engineer on 1.5.1998 requiring petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 90,338 which was paid by the State Government on account of death of a worker as per the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

(2.) The petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a contractor. On 14.5.1995 one labourer called Shiv Prasad Choud- hary was working at Deoghat on Banganga river while repairing the bridge when he was pulling the pipe tied with a rope, fell from the bridge and died on the spot. The deceased was 19 years old receiving salary of Rs. 1,170 per month. A case was filed by the dependants of the deceased before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for the grant of compensation on account of death of their son. Dinesh Shukla who was power of attorney holder of the petitioner, was impleaded as party, not the petitioner P.K. Shukla. In certain construction contracts P.K. Shukla and Dinesh Shukla have worked together. No award was passed against P.K. Shukla or Dinesh Shukla, award was passed against respondents State of M.P. and Executive Engineer, they were held liable to make payment of compensation. The Executive Engineer has issued a communication, P1, dated 1.5.1998 crossing all the boundaries, committing contempt of court thereby shocking and surprising to the petitioner to recover the amount. It was submitted that death was unrelated to the job of the petitioner. The petitioner was not a party before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation as such order of deduction of compensation paid from payment of petitioner was improper. As Commissioner has directed the award to be paid by State and Executive Engineer, liability could not have been in turn imposed upon the petitioner. Act of the respondent No. 1 was thus, illegal.

(3.) A return has been filed by respondents, it is contended that petitioner has suppressed the factum of execution of an agreement in favour of government under which he was carrying out the work, as clause 21 of the said agreement make the petitioner liable to make entire payment to the government, which government has incurred towards making payment to the labourer under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. Petitioner is bound by the said term of the agreement. Petitioner was assigned with the repairing work of Banganga bridge on Palari-Kahani Road. For this purpose agreement, R1, was reached on 16.1.1995. Clause 21 of the agreement provides for liability of worker to be borne by the contractor. It is submitted that as per clause 21, government shall be at liberty to recover the amount or any part thereof by deducting it from the security deposit or from any sum due by the government. Thus a sum of Rs. 90,338 was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner as the said amount has been paid by the government on 27.4.1998. Amount is recoverable from petitioner. Dinesh Shukla was power of attorney holder, order passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation cannot be assailed in this petition.