03.03.2025 Kashmir Si mir Singh v. Haryana M ana Milk Food Limited, Kaithal Road Road Pehowa, Tehsil Peho il Pehowa
Case Details
1 1998 & FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 [109] [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA FAO-1063 Date of De 1063-1998 (O&M) of Decision : 03.03.2025 Kashmir Si mir Singh …Appellant versus Haryana M ana Milk Food Limited, Kaithal Road Road Pehowa, Tehsil Peho il Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and ot and others ….Respondents [2] FAO-1989 1989-1999(O&M) Haryana M Tehsil Peho ana Milk Food Limited, Kaithal Road il Pehowa, District Kurukshetra Road Pehowa, ….Appellant versus Kashmir Si mir Singhand another ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: and Mr. PawanAttri, Advocate and Advocate Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Adv for the appellant(s). None for respondent No.1.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Addl. AG, l. AG, Haryana. *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] The afore captioned two app o appeals are against common ord n order dated 12.0 12.01.1998 passed by the Comm Commissioner, under the Workmen rkmen’s Compensat pensation Act, 1923, Kurukshetra. [2] RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1063-1998 is at the b the behest of the employee seekin seeking 2 1998 & FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 enhancem ncement of compensation. [3] FAO-1989-1999 is at the beh he behest of the employer, challengin llenging his liability iability, claiming that the claimant w ant was an employee of Miyan Irsha Irshad Ahmed-the the contractor and thus, the appe e appellant ought not have been he en held liable. [4] So far as the issue raised by e d by employer is concerned, the answ answer to the situ e situation lies in the provision con on contained under Section 12 of th of the Employee’s loyee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The . The same reads as under:- “12. Contracting.- (1) Where an e any person (hereinafter in this sectio section referred to as the principal) in ) in the course of or for the purposes ses of his trade or business contracts w cts with any other person (hereinafter fter in this section referred to as the the contractor) for the execution by by or under the contractor of the who whole or any part of any work which hich is ordinarily part of the trade or bu r business of the principal, the princip incipal shall be liable to pay to any *[e *[employee] employed in the executio cution of the work any compensation w ion which he would have been liable ble to pay if that *[employee] had been been immediately employed by him; an ; and where compensation is claimed imed from the principal, this Act sha t shall apply as if references to the prin principal were substituted for referenc rences to the employer except that the t the amount of compensation shall all be calculated with reference to the the wages of the *[employee] under t er the employer by whom he is immedia ediately employed. (2) Where the principal is lia is liable to pay compensation under th er this section, he shall be entitled to b to be indemnified by the contractor, tor, or any other person from whom the the *[employee] could have recover overed compensation and where a cont contractor who is himself a principal ipal is liable to pay compensation or or to indemnify a principal under th er this section he shall be entitled to be o be indemnified by any person standin anding to him in the relation of a cont contractor from whom the *[employe loyee] could have recovered compensat nsation] and all questions as to the rig e right RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to and the amount of any su y such indemnity shall, in default ult of 3 1998 & FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 agreement, be settled by the Com Commissioner. (3) Nothing in this section sh ion shall be construed as preventing ting a *[employee] from recovering ing compensation from the contract tractor instead of the principal. (4) This section shall not ap t apply in any case where the accide cident occurred elsewhere that on, in , in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usu usually undertakes, as the case may b ay be, to execute the work or which ich are otherwise under his control trol or management.” [5]
Decision
In view of the above, appellan pellant is granted liberty to recover th over the amount of c nt of compensation from the employe ployer-respondent No.2. [6] In appeal preferred by the em the employee, grievance is against th inst the compensati ensation. On the fateful day of 11.03 11.03.1993, claimant, young boy of 1 oy of 18 years of ag of age was working on the Bottom P ttom Press Machine. The machine wa ine was defective, tive, while operating, claimant rece t received injuries in which his fo his four fingers of le rs of left hand got amputated. [7] The Claim was contested by th d by the employer, disputing employe ployee- employer r oyer relationship. It was pleaded tha ed that the workman was employee o loyee of the contrac ontractor and not that of appellant. ellant. Relying upon Section 12, th 12, the Commissio missioner answered Issue No.1 in f 1 in favour of the employee. Whi While granting c ting compensation, the Commission issioner held that the claimant w ant was disabled to led to the extent of 50% and observed ed as under:- “In view of Section 4 of the ac ion e act, the amount of compensation admissible to the applicant by the t by multiplying fifty percent of the maximum permissible monthl the onthly wage of Rs.1,000/- of the applicant i.e. Rs.500/- by t ted by the relevant factor indicated RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 1998 & FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 against entry No.16 under co i.e. r column No.I of Schedule IV i.e. 228.54, and then by multi the ultiplying the quotient by the percentage of loss of earni the arning capacity suffered by the applicant i.e. 50, would work o ork out to Rs.57,135/- as under:- Rs.500/- x 228.54 x 50 100 = Rs.57,135/- The amount is awarded to be p be paid to the applicant. ” and further awarded compen ompensation, interest, penalty to th to the claimant as ant as under:- In view of my orders, respond espondent No.1 shall pay the followin llowing amount of nt of compensation, interest, penalt penalty and expenses to the applica pplicant man. workman. [8] 1. Compensation Rs.57,135/- 00 P 2. Interest @ 6% from .1998 11.03.93 to 12.01.1998 3. Penalty @ 50% 4. Expenses Total = Total Rs.16,560-50 P Rs.28,567-50 P Rs.2,000-00 P _____________ Rs.1,04,263-00 P Counsel for the claimant subm t submits that claimant is a young bo ung boy of 18 years years of age, who got four fingers o gers of his left hand amputated and and has been rende rendered totally disabled. The Com e Commissioner ought to have grante granted compensati ensation taking his functional disabili isability and loss of earning capacity acity to the extent o xtent of 100%. Reliance is being plac placed upon ratio of law laid down down in ‘‘Partap Narain Singh Deo versus Sriniv Srinivas Sabata and another’ reporte reported RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document as AIR 197 R 1976 Supreme Court 222. 5 1998 & FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 [9] I have heard counsel for the or the parties and have carefully gon lly gone through rec gh records of the case. [10] Amputation of four fingers is gers is not disputed. The precise issu se issue has been d een dealt in ‘Partap Narain Singh ingh Deo’s case (supra), observing a rving as under:- “5. The expression "total tal disablement" has been defin efined in section 2(i) (1) of the Act as fo as follows: "(1) "total disablement" m nt" means such disablement, whether ther of a temporary or perma ermanent nature, as incapacitates tes a workman for all work wh which he was capable of performing ing at the time of the accident re nt resulting in such disablement." It h It has not been disputed before efore us that the injury was of such such a nature as to cause perma rmanent disablement to the responden ndent, and the question for consi consideration is whether the disableme lement incapacitated the respon spondent for all work which he w e was capable of performing ing at the time of the accident. T t. The Commissioner has exami xamined the question and recorded h ed his finding as follows: "The man injured workman in this case is carpenter er by profession....By loss of th of the left hand above the elbow, he h he has evidently been rendered u ed unfit for the work of carpenter as t as the work of carpentry cannot not be done by one hand only." This is obviously a reasonable a ble and correct finding. Counsel for t for the appellant has not been able to as to assail it on any ground and it does n es not require to be corrected in this a his appeal. There is also no justificatio ication for the other argument which h ch has been advanced with reference nce to item 3 of Part II of Schedule I, le I, because it was not the appellan llant's case before the Commissioner th er that amputation of the arm was fro s from 8" from tip of acromion to less th ss than 41/2" below the tip of olecrano ranon. A new case cannot therefore be e be allowed to be set up on facts whi s which have not been admitted or establ stablished.” RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 1998 & FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 [11] The aforesaid view was re as reiterated in ‘Indra Bai versu versus Oriental In ntal Insurance Company Limited a ited and another’, 2023 (8) SCC 21 C 217. Thus, the l , the loss of earning qua claimant ne ant needs to be assessed by taking h king his functional d tional disability to the extent of 100% 100%. Date of accident is 11.03.199 3.1993. For the pur the purpose of Section 4, the minimu inimum notified wages on the date o date of accident we ent were Rs.1000/-. Relevant factor is actor is 228.54. Thus, the compensatio ensation payable to t ble to the claimant is as under:- 1000 x 228.54 x ½ = 1,14,270/ 4,270/- [12] Apart from the aforesaid com id compensation, the claimant is als is also held entitle entitled for interest @ 12% per annum annum for the period commencing fro ng from 30 days aft ays after the accident i.e.10.04.1993 .1993 till the date of actual realizatio lization. The appella appellant is also held entitled for pena r penalty @ 50% of the compensatio nsation, which is = = Rs.57135/-. Expenses have bee ve been awarded by the Commission issioner on actual ba tual basis, the same amount of Rs.2,00 tained. s.2,000/- for expenses are maintained [13] [14] .2025 03.03.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Allowed in the aforesaid terms terms. Photocopy of this order be plac d case. be placed on the file of connected case (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document