Thakur Bherwani Partner M/s Neetha Exports v. T.N.A. Krishnan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 04.07.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.No.307 of 2002Thakur BherwaniPartnerM/s.Neetha ExportsNo.49, Casa Major RoadEgmore, Chennai - 600 008....Appellant(Respondent)C/T accepted vide order dated 8.2.2002made in CMP.No.18257/01Vs.1) T.N.A.Krishnan2) K.P.M.Lakshmi...Respondents(Applicants)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act to set aside the order of computationdated 08.06.2001 made in W.C.No.169/1999 by the Commissioner forWorkmen's Compensation-I, Chennai - 600 006 and dismiss the saidW.C.No.169/1999 with costs.For Appellant: Mr.P.K.Gopalraj Mr.N.Gyanchand JainFor Respondent: Mr.S.IlamparithiJ U D G M E N TThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order ofthe Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I (Deputy Commissioner ofLabour-I), Chennai - 600 006 dated 08.06.2001 made in W.C.No.169/1999directing the respondent therein/appellant herein to pay a sum ofRs.1,97,060/- as compensation to the respondents herein for the death oftheir son T.A.Parameswaran on 17.07.1997 allegedly in an accident thatarose out of and in the course of his employment under the appellantherein.2. The respondents herein being the parents of deceasedParameswaran had preferred a claim on the file of the Commissioner forWorkmen's Compensation-I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Chennaimaking the following allegations:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ i) T.A.Parameswaran had applied for the post of Security Guard inM/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia pursuant to anadvertisement made by the appellant herein/opposite party on 05.05.1994.Thereafter the appellant/opposite party called him for an interview attheir office at No.14, Prince Plaza, 2nd Floor, 46 Pantheon Road, Egmore,Chennai - 600 008. The interview was conducted on 03.06.1994 andthereafter the appellant/opposite party sent a letter of appointmentappointing the said Parameswaran to the post of Security Guard for M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia. The appointmentletter was given by the appellant/opposite party on the followingconditions:-a) that the appointment was equivalent of Rs.5,000/- permonth with an annual increment of Rs.1,000/-;b) that out of the said amount Rs.5,000/-, an amount ofRs.2,000/- will be deposited in a joint savings bank account tobe opened in the joint names of T.A.Parameswaran and Mr.ThakurBherwani, the Managing Director of the opposite party;andc) that Mr.T.A.Parameswaran should stay at Indonesia atleast for three years.ii) Based on the above said appointment order, Parameswaran leftfor Indonesia on 05.06.1994 and reported for duty before Mr.JohnyM.Kalwani, the Director of M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa on the same day,on his arrival in Indonesia, he was asked to enter into a serviceagreement as per the terms of which his monthly pay was initially fixedat Rs.6,000/- with a special bonus of Rs.1,000/-. After completing histraining period successfully, he was regularised in the month ofSeptember 1994. Thereafter he was promoted as General Supervisor on12.05.2004. In terms of the conditions of the appointment order, thesaid amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was deducted from his salary anddeposited in the joint savings bank account till the death ofParameswaran. On 17.07.1997 the said Parameswaran met with a factoryaccident at Jakarta and was admitted at RSU Bina Husad-A-Hospital anddied on the same day. The said fact was informed by the appellant/opposite party to the respondents/applicants on 21.07.1997.3. Contending that the appellant/opposite party was the employer ofthe deceased Parameswaran and that the appellant also acted as an agentof M/s. P.T.Raspari Granitonusa, Jakarta Utara, Indonesia and that hencethe appellant/opposite party was liable to pay compensation to therespondents/applicants for the death of Parameswaran under theprovisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the respondents hadprayed for an order directing the appellant/opposite party to payRs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents/applicants. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The appellant/opposite party resisted the claim by filing acounter statement denying the employer-employee relationship between theappellant/opposite party and the deceased Parameswaran and the liabilityof the appellant to pay any amount as compensation under the Workmen'sCompensation Act. It was contended further in the counter statementthat one of their foreign buyers M/s. P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at JakartaUtara, Indonesia wanted to recruit staff for their factory and requestedthe appellant/opposite party to take preliminary steps informing thatthe final selection of the staff would be made by their representative;that accordingly T.A.Parameswaran son of the respondents/ applicants wasprovisionally selected by the appellant/ opposite party on behalf of theabove said foreign buyer; that the final selection was made by the saidforeign company and that they only arranged Visa for the saidParameswaran. It was also contended that the allegation of holding asum of Rs.2,000/- per month would be deposited in joint savings bankaccount opened in the name of Parameswaran and Mr.Thakur Bherwani wasnot true; that whatever be the terms of employment they were between theabove said foreign company and Parameswaran, the son of respondents/applicants and that the appellant/opposite party was not at all anecessary party to a claim of compensation under the Workmen'sCompensation Act. Based on their plea that there was no juralrelationship of employer and employee between the appellant/oppositeparty and the deceased Parameswaran they disowned their liability andpleaded for the dismissal of the claim application made against theappellant. 5. In the enquiry conducted by the Commissioner for Workmen'sCompensation-I, Chennai, the first respondent herein/first applicant wasexamined as the sole witness (A.W.1) and as many as 10 documents weremarked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 on the side of the respondentsherein/applicants. One witness was examined as R.W.1 and threedocuments were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 on the side of theappellant/opposite party. At the conclusion of enquiry, theCommissioner for Workmen's Compensation - I, Chennai held that thedeceased Parameswaran was employed by the foreign company by nameM/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia, which hadbusiness connection with the appellant/opposite party and that the saidParameswaran was employed by the said foreign company through theappellant/opposite party and hence the appellant/opposite part wasliable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act to therespondents/applicants who are the parents of the above said deceasedParameswaran. Holding that the said Parameswaran was drawing a salaryof Rs.7,000/- per month, but restricting the same to Rs.2,000/- permonth for the purpose of computation of compensation under the Workmen'sCompensation Act and taking the age of the deceased at the time of hisdeath to be 35 years, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I,Chennai awarded a sum of Rs.1,97,060/- as compensation to which therespondents/applicants were entitled. The Commissioner also directedthe appellant/opposite party to pay the said amount within 30 days fromthe date of his order and directed further that in case of failure tomake such a deposit within 30 days, the said amount should be paid with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claimapplication till deposit.6. Aggrieved by and challenging the said order of the Commissionerfor Workmen's Compensation-I, Chennai, the appellant/opposite party haspreferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's CompensationAct, 1923 on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Appeal. 7. An appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen'sCompensation awarding compensation would lie to the High Court underSection 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 on a substantialquestion of law. In this case, the respondents/applicants had made aclaim before the Commissioner on the strength of their pleading that theappellant/ opposite party was the employer of the deceased Parameswaranand that though the said Parameswaran was working under M/s. P.T.RaspariGranitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia, the appellant/ opposite partywas liable to pay compensation, as the appellant was the representativeof the said foreign company. The jural relationship of "employer andemployee" between the appellant and the deceased Parameswaran alleged bythe respondents/applicants in the application has been stoutly denied bythe appellant/ opposite party. 8. In the light of such allegation and counter application, theCommissioner for Workmen's Compensation seems to have arrived at aconclusion that the appellant/opposite party was liable to paycompensation because the deceased Parameswaran was employed in a foreigncompany which did have business connection with the appellant/oppositeparty and the appointment to the said foreign company was made throughthe appellant/opposite party. While directing the appellant to paycompensation, the Commissioner has also observed that after makingpayment to the respondents/applicants, the appellant/opposite partycould claim reimbursement from the above said foreign company, namelyM/s. P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia. 9. It is the specific contention of the appellant/opposite partythat the appellant/opposite party was neither a principal employer noran immediate employer and that hence there is no obligation on the partof the appellant to pay compensation for the death of the deceasedParameswaran. It is the further contention of the appellant that thedeceased Parameswaran was employed not in India but in Indonesia; thatthe accident itself took place in Indonesia; that at the time ofaccident he was employed by the foreign company by name M/s. P.T.RaspariGranitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia and that hence theappellant/opposite party cannot be mulcted with any liability for makingpayment of compensation to the parents of the said deceasedParameswaran. It is the further contention of the appellant that theextra territorial application of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 byvirtue of Section 15-B is restricted to the workmen recruited by thecompanies in India and working as such abroad and that the same cannotbe extended to the workmen recruited for and working abroad in companiesnot registered in India. On the other hand, it is the contention of therespondent that even in respect of persons working abroad in companies https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not registered in India, the claims can be made against Indianrepresentatives of such companies.10. Under such circumstances, the following substantial questionshave arisen for determination in this appeal:-1) Whether the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 are applicable to persons working abroad in companies notregistered in India simply because such companies do have theirrepresentatives in India?2) Whether an agent in India of a foreign company notregistered in India can be held liable to pay compensation underthe Workmen's Compensation Act for an injury or death caused to aperson working abroad in such a foreign company in an accidentthat takes place outside the territory of India?11. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.P.K.Gopalraj,learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Ilamparithi, learned counselfor the respondents/applicants and also perused the materials availableon record.12. The following are the admitted facts:-M/s.Neetha Exports is a partnership firm of which Mr.ThakurBherwani is a partner. The said partnership firm is having itsadministrative office at No.14, Prince Plaza, 2nd Floor, 46 PantheonRoad, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa isa foreign company having its establishments at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia.Parameswaran son of the respondents herein/applicants was employed inthe said foreign company in one of its establishments at Jakarta,Indonesia, initially as a Security Guard, with an initial pay ofRs.6,000/- per month with a special bonus of Rs.1,000/- per month and anannual increment of not less than Rs.1,000/-. The said Parameswaranjoined the services of the above said M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa atJakarta Utara, Indonesia on 05.06.1994 after entering into a serviceagreement with the said company on the above said date. While he wasthus serving in one of the establishments of the above said company atJakarta, Indonesia, he met with a factory accident on 17.07.1997 anddied on the same day after brief treatment in the hospital. A copy ofthe Postmortem certificate and a copy of the Accident Report marked asEx.A4 and Ex.A5 respectively and a copy of the certificate of entry ofdeath in the records of Embassy of India, Jakarta (Indonesia) marked asEx.A6 reveal the fact that the said Parameswaran met with a factoryaccident while functioning as an employee of the above saidM/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at its factory at TANJUNG UDI, KEC. GUNUNGPUTRI, KAB. BOGOR, as a heavy stone of about one ton weight fell on himand that he succumbed to the injuries after a brief treatment in RSUBina Husad-A-Hospital. The fact of the said accident and the death ofParameswaran was informed to the respondents/applicants through theappellant/opposite party and it was the appellant/opposite party whohelped the respondents/ applicants to bring the dead body ofParameswaran to Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. According to the contentions raised by therespondents/applicants, the said Parameswaran was selected by theappellant/opposite party after conducting an interview at itsadministrative office and an appointment order was issued by theappellant/opposite party pursuant to which the said Parameswaran went toIndonesia to work under M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa. A copy of theappointment letter allegedly issued by the appellant/opposite party hasbeen produced and marked as Ex.A1. Solely relying on the saidappointment letter, the respondents/applicants have claimed compensationagainst the appellant/opposite party as if the appellant/opposite partywas the principal employer of the said Parameswaran whose services hadbeen lent to the foreign company - M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that exceptthe fact that the appellant/opposite party lent their services forselecting appropriate personnel for being recruited by M/s.P.T.RaspariGranitonusa for its establishments in Indonesia, there was no otherconnection between the appellant and the said foreign company concerningthe services of Parameswaran; that after having been selected and sentto Indonesia, the said Parameswaran entered into a service contract withthe above said foreign company; that thereafter he was fully under thecontrol of the said foreign company and was working in theestablishments of the said foreign company in Indonesia and that if atall the respondents/applicants are entitled to claim any compensationfor the death of Parameswaran, they should have made such a claimagainst the said foreign company alone, not in accordance with theWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923, but in accordance with the lawsapplicable to factory accidents in Indonesia. It is the furthercontention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party thatthe appellant/opposite party was neither a principal employer nor animmediate employer of the said Parameswaran and that hence the claimmade against the appellant/opposite party should have been dismissed asnot maintainable. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/ applicantswould contend that Ex.A1 appointment order would make it clear thatParameswaran was recruited by the appellant/opposite party and was sentto Indonesia to work under M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa and that hencethe appellant/opposite party has been rightly held liable to paycompensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by virtue of Section15-B of the said act. It is the further contention of the learnedcounsel for the respondents/applicants that though M/s.P.T.RaspariGranitonusa is a foreign company and a separate entity than theappellant/partnership firm registered in India, both are sister concernsand hence the order of the Commissioner mulcting the liability on theappellant is perfectly valid. The learned counsel for therespondents/applicants would contend further that in any event since theappellant/opposite party acted as the representative of foreign companyviz. M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa, the order of the Commissioner holdingthe appellant/opposite party liable to pay compensation for the death ofParameswaran cannot be held erroneous. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. The learned counsel for the appellant, enumerating theconflicts found between the terms of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the serviceagreement between Parameswaran and M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa andpointing out the fact that the said appointment letter was not signed byThakur Bherwani or any other partner and that it was signed by anotherperson "for Thakur Bherwani", would contend that the said appointmentletter was not a true and genuine one. However, after going through theevidence in this regard, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation haschosen to give a finding that Ex.A1 appointment letter was issued by theappellant/opposite party. The said finding is nothing but a finding offact, which cannot be interfered with in an appeal under Section 30 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act unless such a finding is proved to beperverse. This court, after going through the evidence in this regard,is not in a position to come to the conclusion that the said finding canbe termed perverse. Therefore, no interference can be made with thefinding recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I,Chennai that Ex.A1 letter of appointment was issued by theappellant/opposite party.17. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for theappellant that though the finding regarding genuineness of Ex.A1appointment letter could not be canvassed in this appeal, yet theappellant could demonstrate that the deceased Parameswaran was not anemployee of the appellant at any point of time and that the recruitmentitself was made for M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa alone. The learnedcounsel for the appellant pointed out the fact that the said appointmentletter itself contains a recital to the effect that he was appointed forM/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa for their establishments at Jakarta,Indonesia. There is some force and substance in the said submissionsmade by the learned counsel for the appellant. In Ex.A1 the subject isdescribed as "appointment as Security Guard for M/s.P.T.RaspariGranitonusa for their establishments at Jakarta, Indonesia". The samewill show that the said Parameswaran was appointed not as an employee ofthe appellant/opposite party but as an employee of M/s.P.T.RaspariGranitonusa, Jakarta, Indonesia. Paragraph 5 of the appointment letteralso lends support to such a conclusion. It reads as follows:" This appointment is in any event subject to issue of necessaryVisas, renewals/extensions thereof, and the rules of IndonesianGovernment in respect of the foreign employees in force from time totime."18. To make it clear that after selecting and sending Parameswaranto Indonesia, the appellant/opposite party do not have anything to dowith the service conditions of Parameswaran, the learned counsel for theappellant relies on the copy of the service agreement entered intobetween M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa and Parameswaran marked as Ex.A2.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, pointing outClause 1(b) in the appointment letter, would contend that the same wasenough to hold that there was a contract of service between theappellant and the first respondent that the appellant was acting as anagent/representative of the above said Indonesian company - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa. Of-course as per the said clause 1(b), outof the salary of the deceased Parameswaran, a sum of Rs.2,000/- permonth was directed to be deposited in the joint savings bank account tobe opened in the names of Parameswaran and Thakur Bherwani, a partner inNeetha Exports, as a security. A close scrutiny of the said clause wouldshow that the said amount was sought to be held in the joint account asa security for his continuing in the service of M/s.P.T.RaspariGranitonusa and that the entire amount with accrued interest had to bepaid to the said Parameswaran or his nominee after the completion of oneyear satisfactory service. Admittedly, the above said Parameswaran wasin the continuous service of M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa from 05.06.1994till his death on 17.07.1997, that is for more than three years. FromEx.A3, it is also clear that due to the satisfactory performance,Parameswaran was promoted as General Supervisor in May 1995. Eventhough there was such a clause in Ex.A1, there is no record to show anyamount was deducted from the salary of Parameswaran in accordance withthe said clause and sent to the appellant/opposite party. Neither thename of the bank nor the account number has been produced. Moreover,since the said condition was to be in force only for a period of oneyear, the fact that the deceased Parameswaran was serving underM/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa for more than three years would give rise toan inference that, if at all any such amount was kept in the jointsavings bank account, the same would have been released at the end ofhis first year service. Therefore, on the mere fact that there was sucha clause in Ex.A1 to keep certain amount in the joint deposit assecurity for the deceased Parameswaran continuing in service at leastfor a period of one year, would not have made the appellant either hisprincipal employer or an immediate employer. It is not the case of therespondents/ applicants that the deceased Parameswaran was recruited bythe appellant concern for itself and was sent abroad to work in Jakarta.It is also not the case of the respondents/applicants that the deceasedParameswaran was an employee of the appellant concern and his serviceswere lent temporarily to the foreign company. On the other hand, it isa fact admitted by both parties that he was recruited for the foreigncompany, namely M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa.19. Admittedly, the accident took place in Indonesia, outside theterritorial jurisdiction of India. Generally, as per Section 1 of theWorkmen's Compensation Act, the act shall extend to the whole of India,meaning that it provisions shall apply to all the cases of employmentinjuries leading to disablement or death which occurs within theterritory of India. However, Section 15-B gives certain extraterritorial application to the provisions of the act. Such extraterritorial application for employment injuries caused to workmenoutside the territory of India is prescribed only in respect of twocases, (1) in the case of workmen who are persons recruited by companiesregistered in India and working as such abroad and (2) persons sent forwork abroad along with motor vehicles registered under the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) as drivers, helpers, mechanics, cleanersor other workmen, subject to certain modifications. For the purpose ofbetter appreciation, section 15-B is reproduced here under:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15-B. Special Provisions relating to workmen abroad ofcompanies and motor vehicles. - This Act shall apply -(i) in the case of workmen who are persons recruited bycompanies registered in India and working as such abroad, and(ii) persons sent for work abroad along with motorvehicles registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of1988) as drivers, helpers, mechanics, cleaners or otherworkmen, subject to the following modifications, namely:-(1) The notice of the accident and the claim forcompensation may be served on the local agent of the company,or the local agent of the owner of the motor vehicle, in thecountry of accident, as the case may be.(2) In the case of death of the workman in respect of whomthe provisions of this section shall apply, the claim forcompensation shall be made within one year after the news ofthe death has been received by the claimant:Provided that the Commissioner may entertain any claim forcompensation in any case notwithstanding that the claim has notbeen preferred in due time as provided in this sub-section, ifhe is satisfied that the failure so to prefer the claim was dueto sufficient cause.(3) Where an injured workman is discharged or left behindin any part of India or in any other country any depositionstaken by any Judge or Magistrate in that part or any ConsularOfficer in the foreign country and transmitted by the person bywhom they are taken to the Central Government or any StateGovernment shall, in any proceedings for enforcing the claims,be admissible in evidence -(a) if the deposition is authenticated by the signature ofthe Judge, Magistrate or Consular Officer before whom it ismade;(b) if the defendant or the person accused, as the casemay be, had an opportunity by himself or his agent to cross-examine the witness;(c) if the deposition was made in the course of a criminalproceeding on proof that the deposition was made in thepresence of the person accused.And it shall not be necessary in any case to prove thesignature or official character of the person appearing to havesigned any such deposition and a certificate by such personthat the defendant or the person accused had an opportunity ofcross-examining the witness and that the deposition if made in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a criminal proceeding was made in the presence of the personaccused shall, unless the contrary is proved, be sufficientevidence that he had that opportunity and that it was so made".20. As per Section 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, thesaid Act extends to the whole of India. The normal construction of thedomestic statutes will be that the same shall be applicable within theterritory of the country and shall have no extra territorial applicationin the absence of any specific provision regarding its extra territorialapplication. The general rule is restriction of application of domesticstatutes to the territory of the country. The special provisionsregarding extra territorial applicability of the provisions of thestatute is only an exception. Such exceptions are to be strictlyconstrued and applied only to cases which come within the four cornersof the provision providing extra territorial application of the statute.Likewise Section 15-B of the Workmen's Compensation Act is an exceptionto the general clause regarding the application of the Workmen'sCompensation Act within the territory of India. Section 15-B deals withtwo kinds of persons who are brought under the purview of the Workmen'sCompensation Act, 1923, even though they happen to work abroad at thetime of sustaining injury or suffering death. The first type of personscovered by Clause 1 of Section 15-B are "persons recruited by thecompanies registered in India and working as such abroad" and the secondtype of persons regarding whom the exception provided are "those who hadbeen sent for work for abroad along with motor vehicles registered underthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as drivers, helpers, mechanics, cleaners orother workmen". In both the cases, the following conditions also shouldbe fulfilled:-1) Notice of accident and the claim for compensation should havebeen served on the local agent of the company in the country of accidentor the local owner of the motorcycle in the country of accident.2) In case of death, the claim for compensation should have beenmade within one year after the news of death has been received by theclaimants. There is also a proviso for entertaining the application forcompensation after expiry of the said period of one year if sufficientcause is shown.21. The deceased Parameswaran does not fall under any one of thetwo categories of persons mentioned above. Though it has been contendedon behalf of the respondent that the deceased Parameswaran was recruitedby the appellant/opposite party, admittedly he was not working as suchabroad. In Indonesia, he was not working as an employee of theappellant/opposite party. On the other hand, admittedly, the deceasedParameswaran was employed under M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa, a companynot registered in India. The accident took place not in India but inIndonesia. The deceased Parameswaran had entered into a serviceagreement with his foreign employer M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa. Theappellant/ opposite party did not have any power of control orsupervision over the work of the deceased Parameswaran. It is not eventhe case of the respondents/ applicants that he was recruited as an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ employee of the appellant/opposite party and his services were lent tothe above said foreign company reserving a right to recall him at anypoint of time. As pointed out supra, the recruitment itself was madefor M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa. In fact wage revisions were made andpromotion was given to the deceased Parameswaran by the said foreigncompany out of its own accord. Under these circumstances, it cannot besaid that the deceased Parameswaran was recruited by theappellant/opposite party and was working as such abroad at the time ofaccident. 22. On the other hand, it is very much obvious that he was workingdirectly as an employee of the foreign company in its factory inIndonesia. Clause (ii) of Section 15-B does not have any application tothe deceased since he was not a person sent for work abroad along withmotor vehicles registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. TheCommissioner for Workmen Compensation-I, Chennai, has chosen to mulctthe liability on the appellant/opposite party on the ground that theappellant/opposite party acted as an agent/ representative of the abovesaid Indonesian company, in which the deceased Parameswaran wasemployed. There is no concrete evidence to prove that theappellant/opposite party acted as an agent or representative of theforeign company, except the fact that the appellant extended its serviceto the above said foreign company for selecting the personnel forM/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa to be employed in its factories inIndonesia.23. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that eventhough the workmen would have been employed in a foreign country under aforeign employer, if such foreign employer does have a representative inIndia, such representative can be held responsible to pay compensationfor the injury/death caused to such workmen abroad provided notice ofsuch accident and the claim of compensation is served on theagent/representative in India. This court, is not in a position toaccept such a contention raised by the learned counsel for theappellant. Section 15-B deals with an accident caused to a workmanworking abroad if such a workman was recruited by a company registeredin India and was working as such abroad. Only in such cases the claimfor compensation are allowed to be made in India against the Indiancompany, which is the employer of such workman and even in cases whereinthe workman employed abroad is admitted to be the workman of an Indiancompany, claim for compensation can be made only if notice of theaccident and notice of such claim is served on a localrepresentative/agent of such company in the country of accident. On theother hand, the proposition made by the learned counsel for therespondent is the reverse of what is contemplated in Section 15-B of theWorkmen's Compensation Act. Hence the said contention of the learnedcounsel for the respondent deserves to be rejected as untenable. TheCommissioner for Workmen's Compensation - I, Chennai seems to havemisapplied the said provision of law to extend the provisions of theWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to an accident that took place inIndonesia while the deceased was working as an employee of a foreigncompany. Hence this court comes to the conclusion that the Commissioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has committed an error in applying the statutory provision to the factsof the case and held that the appellant/opposite party was liable to paycompensation to the respondents/applicants. Therefore, both thesubstantial question of law framed in this case have got to be answeredin favour of the appellant/opposite party and against the respondents/applicants. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner for Workmen'sCompensation-I, Chennai - 600 006 directing the appellant/opposite partyto pay compensation to the respondents/applicants is liable to be setaside, as it is based on an erroneous decision on a substantial questionof law.24. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.307 of 2002 isallowed and the order of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I,Chennai - 600 006 dated 08.06.2001 made in W.C.No.169/1999 is set aside.The claim of the respondents/applicants for compensation shall standdismissed. However, there shall be no order as to the costs.Asr/Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarToThe Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Chennai - 600 006+ 1 cc to Mr. S. Ilamparithi, Advocate, SR No.35225+ 1 cc to Mr. P. K. Gopal Raj, Advocate, SR No.34875C.M.A.No.307/2002BV(CO)SR/30.9.2008