UNION OF INDIA Vs. SARASWATI MAHUNTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE core questions that arise for decision in these appeals are whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants can be held liable for payment of compensation to the injured and deceased workmen and whether they are entitled to be indemnified by the contractor for the compensation paid.

(2.) UNION of India represented by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta and the Divisional Railway Manager, Khurda Road Division, South Eastern Railway, Khurda, have filed these appeals under Section 30(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act') assailing the orders passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner -cum -Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cuttack (for short, 'the Commissioner') awarding compensation in favour of the claimants and holding the appellants liable to pay the same. In some appeals the appellants have also challenged the orders of the Commissioner levying penalty and interest for default in payment of the compensation amount under Section 4A of the Act.

(3.) ON the applications filed by the injured workmen or legal representatives of the deceased workmen in the prescribed forms, the W.C. cases were registered before the Commissioner. The factual position about which there is no dispute is that the workmen concerned were employed by the contractor Jagadish Prasad Roy, opposite party No. 1 in the W.C. cases (hereinafter referred as 'the contractor') who was engaged by the South Eastern Railway for painting of the iron structures and girders of railway bridge No. 544 over river Mahanadi. On 23.2.1990 at about 1.15 p.m. when the workmen were engaged in their work, they were injured by a goods train which passed on the said bridge while proceeding from Cuttack side towards Kendrapara Road. The accident occurred when door of a box wagon which had been left open hit the workmen on different parts of their bodies. They were admitted to the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital at Cuttack for treatment. Since no compensation was paid by the contractor or the South Eastern Railway, they filed the applications claiming compensation impleading the contractor as well as the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta, and the Divisional Railway Manager, Khurda Road Division, South Eastern Railway as opposite parties.