(1.) THE appellant, the principal employer, has challenged the award dated 29-7-04 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Commissioner has granted a compensation to the tune of Rs. 4]42]740/- in favour of respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2, Premraj, had taken Meetha Lal, the workman from his village in District Sawai Madhopur for working on a house, which was under construction at Balotra. THE workman was promised a daily wage of Rs. 150/- as well as food and accommodation at Balotra. On 1-7-02, while Meetha Lal was working as a stone cutter on the Stone Cutting Machine, due to an accident, he was electrocuted. Meetha Lal expired on the spot itself. Since his old widowed mother was totally dependent on the earning of the deceased workman, she filed a claim petition against the appellant, the principal employer and against two contractors, the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3. THE appellant filed his written statement and denied the averments of the claim petition. According to him, the workman was not hired for the purpose of stone cutting, but was hired for the purpose of preparing the cement mixture for the walls. On the fateful day, while other workers were absent, the workman toyed with the stone cutting machine. Due to his own negligence he was electrocuted. Furthermore, he claimed that the workman was not directly under his employment but was employed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were the contractors. Thus he denied his liability for the payment of the compensation amount.
(3.) IN rejoinder, Mr. Tiwari has brought the first proviso to Section 21 to the notice of this Court and has argued that since the learned Commissioner at Sawai Madhopur did not have the jurisdiction, the learned Commissioner was duty bound to give notice to the workmen's Compensation Commissioner at Balotra. Since the learned Commissioner at Sawai Madhopur has not done so, the entire proceedings stand vitiated.