STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. CHITREKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 663 of 1996 (Chitrekha v. Lakhi Singh). The State and its Executive Engineer have filed this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the WC Act') against the order dated 13.2.1996 passed in Case No. 85/ W.C.A./88/F by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Bilaspur (for short 'the Commissioner').

(2.) Facts giving rise to appeal are thus: The appellants awarded a works contract of different works of Chapi Nallah Bandh to respondent No. 8 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract No. 1/DL/88-89. To execute the contract the respondent No. 8 engaged several labourers, one of them was the deceased Shyamji alias Raju, who on ill-fated day of 18.4.1988 at about 9 a.m. while was loading the earth in truck No. MPM 4881 owned by respondent No. 8, heap of earth fell down from the truck on the deceased Shyamji. He was taken to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. The subengineer lodged the first information report at Police Station Ratanpur on 24.4.1988. As the deceased died due to the injuries received in accident arising out of and during the course of employment and that the compensation calculated in accordance with section 4 of the WC Act, was not deposited within one month for disbursement, the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 who are the dependants of the deceased filed an application under section 3 of the WC Act against the appellants, the owner of the truck, respondent No. 7 and the contractor, respondent No. 8, before the Commissioner. The respondent No. 7 after notice did not appear and was proceeded ex pane, while the appellants and the respondent No. 8 contested the application for compensation. The Commissioner on the evidence adduced by the parties held that the deceased died due to the injuries received by accident arising out of and during the course of employment of the contractor and the principal. The deceased aged 22 years was getting Rs. 40 per day, monthly Rs. 1,200, therefore, as provided by section 4 of the WC Act, calculated the compensation of Rs. 1,06,257.60. The Commissioner also directed the payment of compound interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of arrears from the date of accident and also recovery of Rs. 30,000 as penalty, as the respondent No. 8 and appellants failed to justify the delay in depositing the amount of compensation.

(3.) Mr. Agrawal, learned Government Advocate, contended that the Commissioner illegally directed payment of compensation, interest and penalty by the appellant State who is not the employer, but the principal. The compensation was to be paid by the employer, the respondent No. 8, who did not deposit the amount of compensation due in accordance with Chapter II of the Act. The Commissioner was not right in directing recovery of penalty amount of Rs. 30,000 and interest on the arrears under section 4-A (3) of the WC Act, as under section 12 the principal is only liable to pay compensation and not the penalty and interest. A decision of Bombay High Court in Sarjerao Unkar Jadhav v. Gurindar Singh, 1990 ACJ 719 (Bombay), was placed reliance.