O KAY ELECTRIC COMPANY Vs. LAXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Parsidh Singh Mebto was electrocuted and died on 22 March 1969. The Hindustan Steel (Private), Ltd. Rourkela, submitted a preliminary report of the accident on 33 March 1959. It was mentioned therein that the deceased was working under O. Kay Electric Company (hereinafter to be referred to as the company), and the probable cause given was accidental contact with live line, in the colums for precaution taken to prevent such accident, it was noted that the contract (the company) had been inserted in writing and several times verbally to take shut-downs in writing and work on the line only when line-clear slip is issued. On receipt of this report, the labour welfare officer of the State addressed a letter to the company. It was mentioned therein that Sri Narang, a representative of the company, had discussions with the labour welfare officer when the latter pointed out that a report in form EE of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was to be submitted and a copy of the pro forma EE was sent to the company. On 24 April 1959 the widow of the deceased filed an application claiming compensation. On 25 April 1959, the company submitted the report of the fatel accident in form EE in which the death of the workman was stated to have taken place at 2-15 pm. on 23 March 1959 in sector 2, Roprkela-2. The manner in which the deceased was employed at the time was mentioned as electrician line-man, and the cause of accident was given as accidental electrocution. The Hindustan Steel (Private), Ltd. , the company and one Musafir Bhagat filed their written statements.

(2.) IN the written statement, the Hindustan Steel (Private), Ltd. , took the plea that it was not only not the employer but was also not the principal employer and that the company was liable as the deceased was the workman under the latter. Even under the admission of the company that deceased was working under Musafir Bhagat, a petty con-tractor, the company is liable.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the company, the submission of the report in form EE was admitted. The company's liability to pay compensation was denied on the allegations that the deceased was an employee under his petty contractor Musafir Bhagat and that control of the street light was under the charge of the electrical department of the Hindustan Steel, Ltd. , who is the principal under Section 12 of the Act. It was farther averred that the construction of the overhead lines was in progress which was energised without intimation to the company and that the deceased was working on the particular portion of the line from the morning on his own accord.