Disposed

Eagle Hunter Solution Ltd. v. Hind Energy And Coal Beneficiation i Ltd. And Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2024WPL/203/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Principal employer was allowed to recover employee compensation from the petitioner-contractor under Section 12(2) of the Employees' Compensation Act without any hearing. The High Court held this violated natural justice, quashed the order and remitted the matter for fresh decision after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remitted to Commissioner, Employees Compensation for fresh decision under Section 12(2) after hearing both parties.

Eagle Hunter Solution Ltd. Vs Hind Energy And… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:29425

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPL No. 203 of 2013

¶6

Eagle Hunter Solution Ltd Through Its Executive Director, 61 C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi Pin 110016,

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Hind Energy And Coal Beneficiation (I) Ltd. Through Its Manager, Hind Energy And Coal Beneficiation (I) Ltd, 1st Floor, Shri Sai Parisar Commercial Complex, Shri Kant Verma Marg, Bilaspur C.G.,

¶10

Commissioner For Workman Compensation Act-Cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur C.G.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent : None.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

Order On Board

06/08/2024 :

KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE

This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 15^th April, 2013, whereby under Section 12 (2) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act, 1923’), respondent No.2/Principal

¶18

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act, 1923’), respondent No.2/Principal BARVE Date: 2024.08.07 Employer was granted an opportunity to recover the amount of 11:27:37 +0530

¶19

¶20

compensation of Rs.8,23,800/- from the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing.

¶21

Facts of the case, in brief, are that one of the employees namely, Shivendra Kumar Mishra, who was working with respondent No.1, died on 16^th February, 2013 during the course of and arising out of employment with respondent No.1. Thereafter under the Act, 1923, the Assistant Director, Industrial Health and Safety Department, Bilaspur has assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs.8,23,800/-. Respondent No.1 has deposited the said amount on 15^th April, 2013 and also moved an application for indemnifying the said amount of compensation from the petitioner under Section 12 (2) of the Act, 1923. The said application was allowed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Hence this petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Commissioner, without examining the fact as to whether the deceased employee was an employee of the petitioner and there exists relationship of employer and the employee between the deceased and the petitioner, has passed the impugned order. He submits that the matter may be remitted back to the concerned authority to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to determine such issue as required under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1923.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition carefully.

¶24

Under Section 12 of the Act, 1923, the Commissioner is duty bound to to ensure that all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such

¶25

¶26

indemnity, in default of agreement, be settled. For the sake of brevity, Section 12 reads thus:-

¶27

“ 12 . Contracting .- (1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any *[employee] employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that *[employee] had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the *[employee] under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.

¶28

(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation] and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.

¶29

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a *[employee] from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal.

¶30

(4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere that on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management.”

¶31

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, one of the employees namely, Shivendra Kumar Mishra had died during the course of

¶32

¶33

employment on 16.2.2013. In response to the notice issued by the Commissioner, respondent No.1/Principal Employer has deposited the amount of compensation of Rs.8,23,800/- on 15^th April, 2013 and on the same day also moved an application under Section 12 (2) of the Act, 1923 for indemnifying the said amount of compensation from the petitioner herein. Learned Commissioner, without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order on the same day and granted liberty to respondent No.1 to recover the said amount from the petitioner.

¶34

From the aforesaid facts, it is explicit that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶35

For the foregoing, the impugned order is quashed/set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur. The said Court shall provide an opportunity of hearing to both the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.1 and thereafter shall pass an order in terms of Section 12 (2) of the Act, 1923, in an expeditious manner.

¶36

Both the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.1 shall remain rd

¶37

present before the said Court on 3 September, 2024 .

¶38

With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶40

Barve

Eagle Hunter Solution Ltd. v. Hind Energy And Coal Beneficiation i Ltd. And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eagle Hunter Solution Ltd. v. Hind Energy And Coal Beneficiation i Ltd. And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Chhattisgarh Pathya Pustak Nigam

Safed Ram Pradhan Vs Ganesh Ram

Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mamidipally Appalla Narasimha Murthy Vs M.V. Prabhaker

Manoj @ Ishak Khakha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devchand Kurrey Vs State of Chhattisgarh