General Manager C.C. Ltd. Vs. Bhim Yadav and ors. - Court Judgment

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.11.1994 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Hazaribagh in WC No. 34/93, whereby he has awarded a sum of 1,05,898.20 as compensation to the claimants on account of death of late Inderjeo Yadav.

2. The facts case lie in a narrow compass.

3. The deceased Inderdeo Yadav was appointed as Home Guard in the District Commandant Bihar Home Guard Battalion, Hazaribagh. Service of some of the home guards including deceased were lien to the CC Ltd. for guarding Explosive Magazine stored at Koihara Rajrappa Project. On the fateful day, there was explosion in one of the Magazine, as a result of which the deceased Inderdeo Yadav died. The respondents who are the claimants filed claim before the Commissioner Workmen Compensation against the appellant CC Ltd. for the grant of compensation. The appellant CC Ltd. contested the said claim stating inter alia that the deceased was home guard, employed by the State Government and the CC Ltd. is not at all concerned in respect of the employment, payment of salary and other things. The appellant denied and disputed the relationship of employer and the employee between the CC Ltd, and the deceased.

4. Further case of the appellant was that Explosive Magazine Store situated atKoihara was being operated by M/s ICI India Ltd, who is the manufacturer of explosives. Their further case is that on the date of occurrence the deceased was at rest and not on duty and therefor he is not entitled to compensation. During the pendency of the case M/s ICI India Ltd. was also impleaded as party respondent. A separate show cause was also filed by M/s ICI India Ltd. denying the relationship arid further stated that no compensations payable by it.

5. It appears that the claimant as also the CC Ltd. filed written statement before the Commissioner Workmen Compensation and copy of the letter issued by Chief General Manager of the appellant CC Ltd. to the Regional Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Ranchi dated 11.7.1991 was also produced in support of the fact that it was on the request of CC Ltd., home guards were posted at different coal-fields of the appellant.

6. The Commissioner, Workman Compensation after considering the claim application, show cause and the documents filed by the parties and after hearing the counsels allowed the claim of the claimants and held that claimant are entitled to compensation from the appellant CC Ltd.

7. Heard Mr. Suresh Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant CC Ltd. and Mr. A. Sen, learned counsel for the ICI India Ltd. and the learned counsel for the claimants.

8. Mr. Suresh Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order only on the ground that the Commissioner without giving opportunity to the appellant fcr adducing evidence and examining witnesses disposed of the claim against them. Learned counsel submitted that the Commissioner has committed serious illegality in holding the employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the appellant and the finding based is on no evidence.

9. So far first point raised by Mr. Prasad, is concerned from perusal of the case record of the claim case, it appears that after the parties filed their show cause, the case was fixed for hearing and the counsels appearing for the parties have advanced their argument on different dates. Itfurther appears from the order sheet that on various dates Commissioner directed the counsel to make their submission on different issues involved in the case and ultimately after hearing counsels at length the Commissioner passed final order. At no point of time, either the appellant CC Ltd. or any of the respondents expressed their willingness before the Commissioner to examine witness. It is not a case where CC Ltd. either desired to examine witnesses or produced witnesses but the Commissioner refused to allow the appellant to examine witnesses. As a matter of fact none of the parties examined any witness, instead of advanced their argument on the question whether compensation is payable to the claimants and who would be liable to pay the same. I, therefore, do not find much force in the submission of the learned counsel.

10. Next point urged is that the Commissioner has not recorded a finding with regard to employer and employee relationship between the appellant CC Ltd. and the deceased. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Commissioner has taken notice of the letter written to the Regional Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Ranchi, Genuineness of that letter has not been disputed by the parties before the Commissioner, and found that it is the General Manager, CC Ltd. who requested the authorities of Bihar Home Guard to depute few Home Guards for guarding explosive Magazine situated at Rajrappa Project. Pursuant to that letter few Home Guards including the deceased was deputed. The Commissioner also recorded a finding that wages paid to the Home Guards including deceased was reimbursed by the appellant.

11. Scope of Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act for entertaining the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner is very limited. The said Section 30 very clearly provides that the award of the Commissioner passed under the aforesaid Act can be challenged in the appeal where substantial question of law are involved.

12. As noticed above, the Commissioner has recorded a finding of fact that the deceased Home Guard was deputed atthe request of appellant CC Ltd. and the wages paid to the deceased was reimbursed by the appellant. In that view of the matter, in the event of accident or personal Injury of the Home Guard while working for the benefit of the appellant shall be deemed to be the employee under the appellant. I am further of the view that the deputation of the deceased at the instance of the appellant pursuant to letter of request complying the requirement of Section 12 of the said Act and therefore appellant will be treated as an owner/employer for the purpose of fixing liability for payment of compensation in case of death or injury to an employee.

13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the cases, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the instant appeal which needs adjudication by this Court. I am not inclined to disturb the finding of fact recorded by the tribunal while fixing liability for payment of compensation.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.