FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 [109] [1] Kashmir Singh Haryana Milk Food Limited, Kaithal Road Pehowa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and other [2] Haryana Milk Food Limited, Kaithal Road Pehowa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra Kashmir Singh Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] dated 12.01.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Compensation Act, 1923, Kurukshetra. [2] 1998 & IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1063 Date of Decision : 03.03.2025 Kashmir Singh versus Haryana Milk Food Limited, Kaithal Road Pehowa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and other FAO-1989 Haryana Milk Food Limited, Kaithal Road Pehowa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra versus Kashmir Singhand another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. PawanAttri, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s). None for respondent No.1. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The afore captioned two appeals are against common order dated 12.01.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Compensation Act, 1923, Kurukshetra. FAO-1063-1998 is at the behest of the employee seeking IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1063-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03.03.2025 …Appellant Haryana Milk Food Limited, Kaithal Road Pehowa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and others ….Respondents 1989-1999(O&M) Haryana Milk Food Limited, Kaithal Road Pehowa, ….Appellant ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN and Advocate Mr. Sandeep Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana. The afore captioned two appeals are against common order dated 12.01.1998 passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen’s 1998 is at the behest of the employee seeking 1 The afore captioned two appeals are against common order under the Workmen’s 1998 is at the behest of the employee seeking RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 enhancem [3] his liability, claiming that the claimant was an employee of Miyan Ahmed-the contractor and thus liable. [4] to the situation lies in the provision contained under Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1998 & enhancement of compensation. FAO-1989-1999 is at the behest of the employer, challenging his liability, claiming that the claimant was an employee of Miyan the contractor and thus, the appellant ought not have been held So far as the issue raised by employer is concerned, the answer to the situation lies in the provision contained under Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The same reads as under: “12. Contracting.- (1) Where any person (hereinafter in t referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any *[employee] employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that *[employee] had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the *[employee] under the employer by whom he is immediately employed. (2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation] and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of 1999 is at the behest of the employer, challenging his liability, claiming that the claimant was an employee of Miyan Irshad the appellant ought not have been held So far as the issue raised by employer is concerned, the answer to the situation lies in the provision contained under Section 12 of the 1923. The same reads as under:- (1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any *[employee] employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to ee] had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be d with reference to the wages of the *[employee] under the employer by whom he is immediately employed. Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or n from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing m in the relation of a contractor from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation] and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of 2 1999 is at the behest of the employer, challenging Irshad the appellant ought not have been held So far as the issue raised by employer is concerned, the answer to the situation lies in the provision contained under Section 12 of the his section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any *[employee] employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to ee] had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be d with reference to the wages of the *[employee] under the Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or n from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing m in the relation of a contractor from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation] and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 [5] amount of compensation from the em [6] compensation. years of age was working on the Bottom Press Machine. The machine was defective, while op fingers of left hand got amputated. [7] employer relationship. It was pleaded that the workman was employee of the contractor and not Commissioner answered Issue No.1 in favour of the employee. granting compensation, the Commissioner h disabled to the extent of 1998 & agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a *[employee] from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal. (4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere that on, in or about the premises on which principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management.” In view of the above, appellant is granted liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the employer In appeal preferred by the employee, grievance is against the compensation. On the fateful day of 11.03.1993, c years of age was working on the Bottom Press Machine. The machine was defective, while operating, claimant received injuries in which his four fingers of left hand got amputated. The Claim was contested by the employer, disputing employee employer relationship. It was pleaded that the workman was employee of the contractor and not that of appellant. Relying upon Section 12, the Commissioner answered Issue No.1 in favour of the employee. granting compensation, the Commissioner h disabled to the extent of 50% and observed “In view of Section 4 of the act, the amount of compensation admissible to the applicant by multiplying fifty percent of the maximum permissible monthly wage of Rs.1,000/ applicant i.e. Rs.500/- by the relevant factor indicated agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. ection shall be construed as preventing a *[employee] from recovering compensation from the contractor This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere that on, in or about the premises on which principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or In view of the above, appellant is granted liberty to recover the ployer-respondent No.2. In appeal preferred by the employee, grievance is against the On the fateful day of 11.03.1993, claimant, young boy of 18 years of age was working on the Bottom Press Machine. The machine was claimant received injuries in which his four Claim was contested by the employer, disputing employee employer relationship. It was pleaded that the workman was employee of that of appellant. Relying upon Section 12, the Commissioner answered Issue No.1 in favour of the employee. While granting compensation, the Commissioner held that the claimant was ed as under:- “In view of Section 4 of the act, the amount of compensation admissible to the applicant by multiplying fifty percent of the maximum permissible monthly wage of Rs.1,000/- of the by the relevant factor indicated 3 ection shall be construed as preventing a *[employee] from recovering compensation from the contractor This section shall not apply in any case where the accident the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or In view of the above, appellant is granted liberty to recover the In appeal preferred by the employee, grievance is against the young boy of 18 years of age was working on the Bottom Press Machine. The machine was claimant received injuries in which his four Claim was contested by the employer, disputing employee- employer relationship. It was pleaded that the workman was employee of that of appellant. Relying upon Section 12, the While that the claimant was “In view of Section 4 of the act, the amount of compensation admissible to the applicant by multiplying fifty percent of the of the by the relevant factor indicated RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 claimant as under: amount of compensation, interest, penalty and expe workman. [8] of 18 years of age been rendered totally disabled. The Commissioner ought to have granted compensation taking his functional disability and loss of the extent of 100% ‘‘Partap as AIR 1976 Supreme Court 222 1998 & against entry No.16 under column No.I of Schedule IV i.e. 228.54, and then by multiplying the quotient by the percentage of loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant i.e. 50, would work out to Rs.57,135/ Rs.500/- x 228.54 x 50 100 The amount is awarded to be paid to the applicant. ” and further awarded compensation claimant as under:- In view of my orders, respondent No.1 shall pay the following amount of compensation, interest, penalty and expe workman. 1. Compensation 2. Interest @ 6% from 11.03.93 to 12.01.1998 3. Penalty @ 50% 4. Expenses Total Counsel for the claimant submits that claimant is a young boy of 18 years of age, who got four fingers of his left hand amputated and rendered totally disabled. The Commissioner ought to have granted compensation taking his functional disability and loss of the extent of 100%. Reliance is being placed upon Narain Singh Deo versus Srinivas Sabata and another’ AIR 1976 Supreme Court 222. under column No.I of Schedule IV i.e. 228.54, and then by multiplying the quotient by the percentage of loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant i.e. 50, would work out to Rs.57,135/- as under:- = Rs.57,135/- The amount is awarded to be paid to the applicant. ” and further awarded compensation, interest, penalty to the In view of my orders, respondent No.1 shall pay the following amount of compensation, interest, penalty and expenses to the applicant Rs.57,135/- 00 P 93 to 12.01.1998 Rs.16,560-50 P Rs.28,567-50 P Rs.2,000-00 P _____________ Total = Rs.1,04,263-00 P the claimant submits that claimant is a young boy got four fingers of his left hand amputated and rendered totally disabled. The Commissioner ought to have granted compensation taking his functional disability and loss of earning capacity placed upon ratio of law laid down in Srinivas Sabata and another’ reported 4 under column No.I of Schedule IV i.e. 228.54, and then by multiplying the quotient by the percentage of loss of earning capacity suffered by the interest, penalty to the In view of my orders, respondent No.1 shall pay the following nses to the applicant the claimant submits that claimant is a young boy got four fingers of his left hand amputated and has rendered totally disabled. The Commissioner ought to have granted earning capacity to ratio of law laid down in reported RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 [9] through records of the case. [10] has been dealt in under:- 1998 & I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefu through records of the case. Amputation of four fingers is not disputed. The precise issue has been dealt in ‘Partap Narain Singh Deo “5. The expression "total disablement" has been defined in section 2(i) (1) of the Act as follows: "(1) "total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of the time of the accident resulting in such disablement." It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disableme incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows: "The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession....By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only." This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to item 3 of Part II of Schedule I, because it was not the appellant's case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 41/2" below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot therefore be allowed to be set up on facts which have not been admitted or established. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone Amputation of four fingers is not disputed. The precise issue Narain Singh Deo’s case (supra), observing as The expression "total disablement" has been defined of the Act as follows: "(1) "total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement." It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disableme incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his "The injured workman in this case is carpenter by y loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only." This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification argument which has been advanced with reference to item 3 of Part II of Schedule I, because it was not the appellant's e before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 41/2" below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot therefore be allowed to be set up on facts which have not been admitted or established.” 5 lly gone Amputation of four fingers is not disputed. The precise issue observing as The expression "total disablement" has been defined "(1) "total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement." It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his "The injured workman in this case is carpenter by y loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification argument which has been advanced with reference to item 3 of Part II of Schedule I, because it was not the appellant's e before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 41/2" below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot therefore be allowed to be set up on facts which RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1063-1998 & FAO-1989-1999 [11] Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another’, 2023 (8) SCC 217 Thus, the loss of earning functional disability to the extent of 100%. Date of accident For the purpose of Section 4, the minimum notified accident were payable to the claimant is as under: [12] held entitled for interest @ 12% per annum 30 days after the accident i.e.10.04.1993 till The appellant is also held entitled for penalty @ 50% which is = on actual basis, the same amount of Rs.2,000/ [13] [14] 03.03.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 1998 & The aforesaid view was reiterated Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another’, 2023 (8) SCC 217 Thus, the loss of earning qua claimant needs to be assessed by taking his functional disability to the extent of 100%. Date of accident For the purpose of Section 4, the minimum notified accident were Rs.1000/-. Relevant factor is 228.54. Thus, the compensation payable to the claimant is as under:- 1000 x 228.54 x ½ = 1,14,270/ Apart from the aforesaid compensation, the claimant is also held entitled for interest @ 12% per annum 30 days after the accident i.e.10.04.1993 till The appellant is also held entitled for penalty @ 50% = Rs.57135/-. Expenses have been awarded by the Commissioner on actual basis, the same amount of Rs.2,000/ Allowed in the aforesaid terms. Photocopy of this order be placed on the 03.03.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable aforesaid view was reiterated in ‘Indra Bai versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another’, 2023 (8) SCC 217 claimant needs to be assessed by taking his functional disability to the extent of 100%. Date of accident is 11.03.1993. For the purpose of Section 4, the minimum notified wages on the date of . Relevant factor is 228.54. Thus, the compensation 1,14,270/- aforesaid compensation, the claimant is also held entitled for interest @ 12% per annum for the period commencing from 30 days after the accident i.e.10.04.1993 till the date of actual realization. The appellant is also held entitled for penalty @ 50% of the compensation, . Expenses have been awarded by the Commissioner on actual basis, the same amount of Rs.2,000/- for expenses are maintained. in the aforesaid terms. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 6 ‘Indra Bai versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another’, 2023 (8) SCC 217. claimant needs to be assessed by taking his is 11.03.1993. on the date of . Relevant factor is 228.54. Thus, the compensation aforesaid compensation, the claimant is also the period commencing from date of actual realization. of the compensation, . Expenses have been awarded by the Commissioner maintained. file of connected case. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.20 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document