Dismissed

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Smt a Selvi

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024MFA/6864/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by BESCOM against an award under the Employee's Compensation Act holding it jointly liable for compensation for the death of a contractor's employee. The court upheld that Section 12(2) makes the principal employer liable regardless of contractual disclaimers, and dismissed the appeal while clarifying BESCOM's right to indemnity from its contractor.

What did the court decide?

Award upheld; appeal dismissed subject to clarification of BESCOM's right to recover the compensation amount from its contractor.

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt a Selvi — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:43996 MFA No. 6864 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6864 OF 2018 (WC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, (COML.O & M) SHIVAJINAGAR DIVISION, LAZZAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 005.

¶8

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, E-1, SUB-DIVISION, PILLANNA GARDEN, 3RD STAGE,VENKATESHAPURAM BENGALURU-560 045

¶9

…APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT A SELVI, W/O D ANNA DORAI, R/AT NO.133, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, VADDARAPALYA, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU-560 045.

¶15

M/S ASIAN FAB TECH PVT.LTD., PLOT NO.5, 2^ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶16

SRI D ANNA DORAI S/O DHARMALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO.133,HENNUR MAIN ROAD,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:43996 MFA No. 6864 of 2018

¶19

VADDARAPALYA, HORAMAVU, AGARA POST, BENGALURU-560 045

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI.B.ROOPESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18/06/2018, PASSED IN ECA NO.105/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, (SCCH-5), BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,26,000/WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM 09.04.2013 TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

A claim petition was filed under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the EC Act”) contending that the claimant’s son suffered an accident during the course of his employment and she was therefore entitled for compensation.

¶27

It was her case that the BESCOM (the appellant herein) had contracted with M/s.Asian Fab Tech Private Limited to execute certain work i.e., for installing new

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43996 MFA No. 6864 of 2018

¶29

transformers and they had, in turn, entered into a subcontract with D.Anna Dorai, who incidentally happened to be the husband of the claimant.

¶30

She contended that since the principal employer was BESCOM and her son was killed in an accident while carrying out a work of the principal employer, it was the principal employer-BESCOM who would be liable to pay the compensation.

¶31

The Trial Court has accepted the claim and has awarded a sum of Rs.9,26,000/- and it has also made BESCOM and the contractor, i.e. M/s.Asian Fab Tech, jointly and severely liable. The appellant-BESCOM is therefore in appeal contending that there was no privity of contract and the work order that had been issued made it clear that BESCOM would not be responsible for any accident, which occurred during the execution of the work.

¶32

The Tribunal has, however, not accepted this contention and has come to the conclusion that BESCOM

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43996 MFA No. 6864 of 2018

¶34

was the principal employer and, as a consequence, it would be liable to pay the compensation, as the accident did occur during the course of the employment.

¶35

The fact that an accident occurred, which killed the son of the claimant, is not in dispute. The only contention sought to be advanced by the BESCOM is that it had no privity of contract with its contractor and it also put forth the contention that it would not be made liable since the official memorandum under which a work order had been issued had made it clear that it would not be responsible in any way for any accident or untoward incident.

¶36

Section 12(2) of EC Act declares that the principal employer would be liable to pay the compensation and that he would be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor. It is therefore clear that if there is a principal employer, who has engaged a contractor and an accident occurs to an employee of the contractor, it is always the principal employer who would be liable and the right will be reserved to the principal employer to be indemnified of

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43996 MFA No. 6864 of 2018

¶38

the loss that they had suffered by recovering the compensation from the contractor.

¶39

In the light of the above provision of law, the official memorandum which sought to exonerate the BESCOM of liability would be of no real consequence since the statutory provision makes the principal employer i.e., BESCOM liable and it only guarantees the right of recovery from the contractor.

¶40

It is also to be noticed here that the work entrusted to respondent No.3-contractor was installation of the transformers, which is the normal work to be done by BESCOM.

¶41

In my view, therefore, the Trial Court was justified in granting the claim and awarding a sum of Rs.9,26,000/-. However, it will have to be clarified that BESCOM would have the right to be indemnified of the loss that it has suffered by recovering the sum from its contractor, i.e.,

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:43996 MFA No. 6864 of 2018

¶43

¶44

M/s.Asian Fab Tech Private Limited. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed subject to the above observation.

¶45

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶46

GSR

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Smt a Selvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Smt a Selvi

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

Smt Naveeda Begaum Vs K Kajendra

The Manager Vs Krishnamurthy

Smt Ranjitha H K Vs Shri Nagaraj P Gangachari

Mr. N. J. Kiran Vs Mrs. Chaitra

Sri Yashwanth D Vs Sri Rafiq Ulla

Mr Veena S Vs Mr Ravi M