Karnataka High Court
MFA.CROB/175/2003 of MADIVALAPP-A Vs THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER on 10 December 2009
COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA MFA.NO.2131 OF 2003(WC) C/w MFA.No.CROB.No.175/2003(WC) IN MFA.No.2131/03: BETWEEN: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT,BIJAPUR 2. THE ASST EXECUTIVE
IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKACIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATEBRD THIS THE [TH]DAY OF DECEMBER 2JOO9
BEFORE
THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICEK N.ANAND
MFA.NO.2131 OF 2003(WC)C/wMFA.No.CROB.No.175/2003(WC)
IN MFA.No.2131/03:BETWEEN:
1.THE CHIBF BXBCUTIVE OFFICERZILLA PANCHAYAT,BIJAPUR
2 THERE ASST BXBCUTIVE ENGINE7ILLA PANCHAYAT BENGG SUB DSINDAGI, DIST BIJAPUR
... APPELLANTS
(By Smt.RATNA SHIVAYOGI MATH.,ADVOCATE)
ANI
1.MADIVALAPPA 8/O YAMANAPPA MADARAGE 40 YRS, R/O KALAKERITALUKA SINDAGI, DIST BIJAPURAGE 40 YRS, R/O KALAKERITALUKA SINDAGI, DIST BIJAPUR
2.KASHIBAI W/O MADIVALAPPA MADARAGH MAJOR,R/O KALAKERI, TALUK SINDAGI
DIST BIJAPUR
3.SATYAWWA D/O MADIVALAPPA MADARAGE 9 YRSAGE 9 YRS
R/O KALAKERI, TALUK SINDAGI, DIST BIJAPR
4.TAYAVVA D/O * MADIVALAPPA MADAR7 YRS, R/O KALAKERITALUKA SINDAGI, DIST BIJAPUR7 YRS, R/O KALAKERITALUKA SINDAGI, DIST BIJAPUR
5.MAHADEVI D/O * MADIVALAPPA MADARAGE 5 YRS, R/O KALAKERI, TALUK SINDAGIDIST BIJAPURAGE 5 YRS, R/O KALAKERI, TALUK SINDAGIDIST BIJAPUR
6.IRAGANTAPPA $/O BALAPPA MOPAGARAGE MAJOR, OCC CONTRACTORR/O KALAKERI, TALUK SINDAGIDIST BIJAPURAGE MAJOR, OCC CONTRACTORR/O KALAKERI, TALUK SINDAGIDIST BIJAPUR
_ RBSPONDENTS
Page 1 of 4
(By Sri.A.R.Kalyanshetty, Advocate tor Respondents 1and 2; Sri.K.Govindaraj and Vittal G.Kollur, Advocatesfor Respondents 3 to 5; Sri.P.Vilas Kumar, Advocate forRespondent No.6)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 30 OF THE WORKMEN'SCOMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THRE JUDGMENT ANAW AR]DT. 17.9.2002PASSEDIN|CASENO)WCA:SR:19/1998_ON|THERILBEORTHECOMMISSIONBR FOR WORKMEN'S COMPBNSATIONAND LABOUR OFFICER, BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWINGTHR CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPBNSATION.
* Corrected vide court order dated 01.10.2013
IN MFA.CROB.No.175/03:BBRHIWEE
1.MADIVALAPPA $8/O YAMANAPPA MADAAGE 40 YRS, R/O KALAKERITALUKA SINDAGI, DIST BIJAPUR2.KASHIBAI W/O MADIVALAPPA MADARAGH MAJOR,R/O KALAKERI, TALUK SINDAGIDIST BIJAPUR
3.SATYAWWA D/O MADIVALAPPA MADARAGE 9 YRS, R/O KALAKERI,TALUK SINDAGI, DIST BIJAPR
4.TAYAWWA D/O YAMANAPPA MADAR7 YRS, R/O KALAKERITALUKA SINDAGI, DIST BIJAPUR
o.MAHADEVI D/O YAMANAPPA MADARAGE 9 YRS, R/O KALAKERI, TALUK SINDAGIDIST BIJAPUR
—. CROSS OBJBCTORS
(By Sri.B.B.Ballari and B.G.Parameshwara, Advocates)
AN):
1.THE CHIBF BXBCUTIVE OFFICERZILLA PANCHAYAT,BIJAPUR
2 THERE ASST BXBCUTIVE ENGINE7ILLA PANCHAYAT BENGG SUB DSINDAGI, DIST BIJAPUR
3. IRAGANTAPPA S/O BALAPPA MOPAGARAGE MAJOR, OCC CONTRACTORR/O KALAKERI, TALUK SINDAGIDIST BIJAPUR
_ RBSPONDENTS
(By Smt.RATNA SHIVAYOGI MATH and ANUPAMAHEGDE,ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2)
This MFA.Crob. is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 ofCPC against the judgment dated 17.9.2002 passed incase No.WCA:SR:19/99 on the file of the Commissionerfor Workmen’s Compensation and Labour Officer,Byapur, |partlyallowingtheclaimpetition:"/compensation andseekingenhancement":compensation.
Page 2 of 4
This appeal and cross-objection coming on forhearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellants have filed this appeal to set asidethe impugned awardinter aliacontending that deceasedWaS notemployed by appellants; deceased!14employed by III respondent; there was no contract ofemployment between appellants and deceased; theentire contract amount was paid to III respondent aitercompletion of work and there was _ cessation relationship between appellants and III] respondentTherefore,the|CommissionerforWorkmen’sCompensation should not have fastened liability onappellants. MFA.Crob.175/03 is filed for enhancementof compensation.
?)It is not in dispute that deceased died as aresult of injuries suffered in the course of heremployment|withierespondent(contractor).Theoccurred in the work spot, which had been handed overby appellants to III] respondent
3. TheCommissionerforWorkmen’sCompensation referring to Section 12 of the Act andalso relying on the judgment reported in (1987) 2 LLJ331 (in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITYBOARD .VS. SUNDARAM ESTATE) has held thatprincipalemployer1S.lableTO compensate|137thereafter to recover the same from the contractor.
Therefore, the appellants who were Principal Employers’cannot be heard to say they are not liable to paycompensation.
4The learned counsel for appellants wouldsubmit that at the time of accident, deceased was aged13 years and III respondent by employing a girl agedabout 13 years had committed an offence punishableunder Child Labour Abolition Act and the relevant factoradopted by the Commissioner is not appropriate to theage of deceased.
5. If the III respondent had violated provisionsof Child Labour Abolition Act, it is for concernedAuthorities to take action against him. That cannot bea ground for appellants to avoid their lability. Asregards computation of age, the Commissioner forWorkmen’s Compensation has relied on birth certificateof deceased, which shows that deceased was born on 295.8.1981 and the deceased was aged about 16 years athe time of accident. Therefore, the Commissioner has|adopted relevant factor of 227.49.
Page 3 of 4
6. The Commissioner has taken wages ofdeceased at Rs.60/- per day. The claimants havedeposed that deceased was getting wages of Rs.60/- perday. The Commissioner has adopted relevant factorappropriate to the age of deceased. The Commissionerfor Workmen’s Compensation has awarded just andproper compensation. Therefore, the appellants cannotbe heard to say that compensation awarded by theCommissioner is excessive so also the claimants cannotbe heard to say that compensation awarded byCommissioner is inadequate.
T Inthe.result,the.appealand9/"44Fobjections are dismissed. The amount deposited by the 1;;62213,4–45122 C6 ,/134:6//67 ," ,56��"++0440"36/ :"/
"/E+63–4–9"+;6341,0"3–1,��0=1;>/
������7 F�������
.12C F
Page 4 of 4
Loading citations and judicial treatment…