JUNIOR ENGINEER ELECTRICAL Vs. BALUKISHORE BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the principal employer under Section 30of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923, (forshort,'the W. C. Act') challenging the judgment/award dated 29th June, 2005, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cuttack, in w. C. Case No. 501-D of 2000, awarding an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation together with interest @ 10% p. a. to be deposited within 30 days, failing which the appellants will be liable for penalty @ 50% of the awarded amount. The two questions which fall for consideration in this appeal are:

(2.) THE factual matrix as pleaded by the claimants before the learned Commissioner is that one Binod Kumar Barik, aged about 18 years was working as a labourer under one dillip Bastia, respondent No. 2, for completion of electrical line of the present appellants. On 20th March, 2000 at about 5:00 p. m. , nearthe village Jaishola, the deceased along with other workmen was engaged by the said respondent No. 2 for reinstallation and restoration of the damaged electrical line, caused by Super Cyclone. The deceased, binod Kumar Barik was engaged for electrical restoration, work at the top of a cemented poll with the help of other workmen, who were helping him from the ground. At that moment the alleged electrical pole collapsed as a result of which the workman, Binod Kumar barik, fell down with the pole over him. Due to such accident, the workman, Binod Kumar barik sustained serious bleeding injuries on his head and other limbs of his body. The people nearby alongwith sub-contractor, respondent No. 2 and that workmen present, immediately carried the injured workman to raghunathpur Government Hospital where the doctor declared the injured workman as dead. The post-mortem was conducted on 21st March, 2000 at the District Medical, jagatsinghpur. It was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased-workman at the time of the accident was working in the premises of the appellants and was engaged in the said work by Dillip Bastia, who was a sub-contractor under a registered electrical contractor, whose details were not known, who was executing the work of the principal employer, i. e. the present appellants, fortheirtrade and business purpose. Accordingly, the claimant, respondent no. 1, claimed compensation for the death of his son, caused due to an accident, arising out of and in course of his employment under the appellants and respondent No. 2 as well as the unknown registered electrical contractor.

(3.) THE immediate employer of the deceased-workman, Dillip Bastia, respondent no. 1, in spite of notice, did not appear or file written statement before the learned commissioner. The present appellants entered appearance and filed their written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and that the deceased workman was never engaged by them for their trade and business.