GREAT INDIA TRADING COMPANY LTD. Vs. MOHD. TASLIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation dated 22nd August, 1962. The facts are briefly as follows: The Great India Trading Company (Private) Ltd. is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The Great India Boating Company, is owned by this company and is alleged to be a subsidiary. The Company's business consists of transporting goods by boat. It has its own boats, but occasionally it hires other people's boats for transporting goods from Naskarpara Ghusuri to ships at Kidderpore. Boat No. 3325 belongs to J. H. Khan, also known as Abir Khan. Md. Asique was the assistant majhi of the said boat. The Respondent Md. Taslim was employed as a dandi on the said boat. It is this Md. Taslim who claims that he is a workman who has met with an accident and is entitled to compensation. First of all, he made an application to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, against "Rampuria Manick, the proprietor of Great India Boating Company," 'which was numbered as claim Case No. 1637 of 1959. According to Md. Taslim he was employed by the "Great India Trading Company Ltd., and received wages from Manick Chand Babu of the Company. Manick Chand Rampuria is the managing Director of the Appellant company. This case was withdrawn in January 1960 with liberty to bring a fresh case. Thereafter the present case was instituted by Md. Taslim against, "the Great India Trading Co (Private) Ltd., proprietor of the Great India Boating Company" In the petition the case of Md. Taslim is as follows: He said that he is a workman employed by the Appellant and on the 6th day of May 1959 he was working on boat A 3325 under the Assistant Majhi Md. Asique. He states that the boat was hired by the Appellant on contract from the owner of the said boat Abir Khan. He proceeds to say that while tying the boat with rope laid down from a steamer at Naskerpara Ghusuri Char, the steamer moved and his right leg got entangled with the rope and was badly injured, so that it had to be amputated above the knee. The monthly wages of the Applicant were stated to be between Rs. 60/ - to Rs. 70/ - and he has alleged that he received injury in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the Appellants and claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 1764/ - . Before the Commissioner of workmen's Compensation, Md. Taslim gave evidence and one Shri. H.K. Joshi, Assistant Manager of the Great India Boating Company, gave evidence. In his evidence, Md. Tailim stated that he was employed under the Great India Trading Company -f' and received his wages from Manick Chand Babu of that company. He said that he did not know Abir khan although he heard that he was the owner of the boat. So far as he was concerned, he worked under Md. Asique, assistant majhi, who used to supervise the employment of the dandis in the boat. He then said that Manick Chand was the munshi of the "Great India". He would order that goods should be transported to a particular place and Asique would execute that order. Asique used to bring money from the ''Great India,'' any cash wages and utilise the rest in feeding the dandis. He himself never took wages from the "Great India" nor did he ever accompany Asique when he went to the office for drawing the money. It is obvious that this poor workman had no precise knowledge as to whom he was working for. He was working in the boat and it was his impression that Md. Asique used to get moneys from the Appellant and pay the workman. 1 he position has however been made clear by the evidence of H.K. Joshi given on behalf of the Appellants. He stated in his evidence that the boat belonged to J. A. Khan also known as Abir Khan. The boat No. 3325 was hired by the company to transport the goods from Naskarpara Ghusuri to ship at Kidderpore. According to him, the company had no liability to pay wages to the dandis or majhis of the boat. Manick Chand Babu is the Managing Director of the Great India Trading Company, but he did not engage either any mojhi or dandi. Joshi said that Md. Asique never took wages from the company and never paid anything to the Respondent. He further said that the Great India Trading Company Ltd. was a financier and the Great India Boating Company, was a subsidiary which carried on the business of supplying boats for transport -It owned some 30 boats by itself and occasionally hired boats from others. It had also its own steamer. The position therefore, is that the Appellants carried on business of transport. In carrying on this business it hired a boat from a contractor Abir Khan who supplied the boat together with majhi dandi and everything else. They were not paid by the Appellants directly, nor were they under their control. I now come to the findings of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. After considering the whole evidence, he has come to the conclusion that the services of the Respondent were not directly hired by the Appellants, but what they did was to hire the boat of Abir Khan who supplied the dandi and majhi and the entire operation of transport was done under the contractor's control and superintendence. He held that there was consequently no direct relationship of employer and workman between the Appellant and the Respondent. He says however, that the matter is governed by Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" Sub -section (1) of Section 12 runs as follows:

(2.) IN my opinion, it is no good going for assistance to cases which depend on their own facts. What are the facts in the present case ? The Appellant usually and ordinarily carried on the business of transportation of goods by boat They engaged a contractor who supplied boat and crew and did the same work under their own superintendence. Since transportation of goods loaded or unloaded from steamer was included in the ordinary business of the company such a steamer, or the boat which was unloading from the steamer, would be "premises" in which the work took place and took place on the specified occasion. It was not as if the accident occurred in mid -steam away from the steamer. A rope had been thrown from the steamer and while tying the boat to the steamer, the workman got entangled. It is well -known that the location of the accident is not confined to the immediate location of the employer's work, but there can be a notional extension. I have no doubt that a boat alongside the steamer engaged in the operation of unloading would be within the scope of this notional extension. In the English case cited above, the accident occurred far from the place of work and on the high street, and consequently did not satisfy the provision of Section 4(4) of the English Act. In my opinion, the facts in the present case satisfy the provisions' of Section 12(4) of the Indian Act. The result is that the Appellants have rightly been made liable and there does not appear to be any reason for interference. Accordingly the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Stay orders are vacated.