Dismissed

The Executive Engineer v. Rathnavva W/O. Honnappa Hallahalli

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2023MFA/25725/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the principal employer's appeal and the dependent cross objection. The court held both principal employer and contractor are liable under the Employees Compensation Act, found the compensation quantum correct, and refused to condone the statutory delay.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the first appeal and the cross objection; costs made easy.

The Executive Engineer Vs Rathnavva W/O. Honnappa Hallahalli — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8079 MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 25725 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100040/2019(WC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25725/2011

¶8

IN MFA.CROB.NO.100040/2019:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.RATHNAVVA W/O. HONNAPPA HALLAHALLI, AGE:64 YEARS, R/O:KHODA, TQ:HIREKERUR, DIST:HAVERI.

¶11

…CROSS OBJECTOR

¶12

(BY SRI G. N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MR.VIJAY N. GUDDADA, PROPRIETOR, M/S.N.N.ELECTRICALS, HAATHALAGERI NAKA, GADAG.

¶15

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL 220 K V STATION, ELECTRICITY SUPPLYING CENTRE, HAVERI, DIST:HAVERI.

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., N.K.COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI P.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI B.M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTIE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION AND LABOUR OFFICER HAVERI AT HAVERI DATED 30.06.2011 IN

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8079 MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 25725 of 2011

¶23

W.C.A/F.NO.208/2009, BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD AND ALLOW THIS CROSS OBJECTION WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

IN MFA.NO.25725/2011:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL 220 K V STATION, ELECTRICITY SUPPLYING CENTRE, HAVERI, DIST:HAVERI.

¶27

…APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI P.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

SMT.RATHNAVVA, W/O. HONNAPPA HALLAHALLI, SA:KHODA, TALUK:HIREKERUR, DIST:HAVERI.

¶31

MR.VIJAY N. GUDDADA, PROPRIETOR, N.N.ELECTRICALS, ELECTRICITY SUPPLYING CENTRE, HAATHALAGERI, NAKA, GADAG.

¶32

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBLI.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI B.M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTIE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶35

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2011 PASSED BY LABOUR OFFICER AND WORKMEN COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER IN WCA/F-208/2009 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEF AS MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.

¶36

THESE MFA CROB AND MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8079 MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 25725 of 2011

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

MFA No.25725/2011 is filed by the Executive Engineer, KPTCL, principal employer challenging the order and award dated 30.06.2011 by the Labour Officer and Workmen Compensation Commissioner (learned Commissioner) in WCA/F-208/2009, questioning the liability fixed on KPTCL.

¶41

MFA Crob.No.100040/2019 is filed by the claimant in MFA No.25725/2011 for enhancement of compensation.

¶42

The factum of death of the deceased out of and

¶43

during the Course of employment is not disputed as the deceased was working as labourer.

¶44

Whereas, MFA Crob.No.100040/2019 in MFA No.25725/2011 is filed by the cross objector for seeking enhance the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Labour Officer, Haveri dated 30.06.2011 in WCA/F-208/2009.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8079 MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 25725 of 2011

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on records.

¶48

Learned counsel for the principal employer KPTCL submitted that the deceased was engaged by the respondent No.2 but not by the respondent No.1-principal employer. Therefore, second respondent is liable to pay the compensation but not the principal employer-KPTCL. Therefore, prays for modification in this regard.

¶49

The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the deceased was engaged even though by the respondent No.2 and working for and on behalf of the principal employer, both the principal employer and the contractor are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation which is correctly held by the learned Commissioner.

¶50

In the present case, the deceased was working for and on behalf of the appellant-KPTCL through second respondent contractor. The second respondent-contractor has engaged the deceased for the work to be carried out

¶51

- 5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8079 MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 25725 of 2011

¶52

for performing the work of appellant-KPTCL. Therefore, in

¶53

this regard, deceased even though is engaged by the contractor-second respondent but was working for and on behalf of the appellant-principal employer hence, principal employer and contractor are liable to pay compensation as per Section 12(3) of the E.C. Act, the principal employer may proceed against the contractor and that liberty is to the employer as per law. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in holding that both the principal employer and the contractor are liable to pay compensation. In this regard, no interference of this Court is called out in the finding given by the Commissioner.

¶54

There is a contract entered between the principal employer and 3^rd respondent insurance company and 3^rd respondent Insurance Company has deposited the lump sum amount whatever the insurance company is liable to pay. Therefore, for the death of the deceased both the principal employer and contractor are liable to pay compensation and because of inter se dispute between the

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8079 MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 25725 of 2011

¶57

appellant and second respondent, the claimant shall not be

¶58

suffer that what Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act is enacted. Hence, it needs no interference by this court. As per Section 12(3) of the Employees Compensation Act, liberty is always there to principal employer to proceed against the 2^nd respondentcontractor. Therefore, appeal of the KPTCL is liable to be dismissed.

¶59

Sofar as quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is concerned, it is found to be correct by holding all the parameters correctly and therefore, there is no ground available for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, cross objection is liable to be dismissed.

¶60

Insofar as condonation of enormous delay of 2521 days, there is no good ground made out to condone the delay. Therefore, cross objection filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed both on the counts on merits as well

¶61

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8079 MFA.CROB No. 100040 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 25725 of 2011

¶62

as on delay. Therefore, cross objection is liable to be

¶63

dismissed. Hence, I pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

MFA No.25725/2011 and MFA Crob.

¶66

No.100040/2019 are dismissed.

¶67

Costs made easy.

¶68

SD/JUDGE

¶69

HMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT-ASC

The Executive Engineer v. Rathnavva W/O. Honnappa Hallahalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. Rathnavva W/O. Honnappa Hallahalli

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

Suresh S/Jo Irappa Mirji Lamani Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Manager Vs Gangappa S/O Basappa Kurabagatti

Sri. Kacharu S/O Viroba Pawar Vs Shri. Shankar S/O Ningappa Kanabur

The Manager Vs Varalakshmi W/O Late Bazarappa @ Munna

The Manager, Vs Gangadhar S/O Guddappa Shettar

Sri. Devaraddy Basappa Dambal Vs Sri. Gangadhar S/O Guddappa Shettar