- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34977 MFA No. 2802 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2802 OF 2020 (ECA) BETWEEN: SMT. ESTHAR S/O LATE MICHEL AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O BALLAVARA, TARIKERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT -577 228. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.VENKATEGOWDA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KESHAVEGOWDA S/O GANAPATHIGOWDA COFFEE PLANTER R/O JEDI BYLU KALASA MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT -577 132. 2. SRI AJAY S/O GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DUPADAKHAN, LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT -577 228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VANSHIKA MATHUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUYOG HERALE.E, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. M.G. KANTHARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2020 PASSED IN ECA NO.04/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, MUDIGERE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34977 MFA No. 2802 of 2020 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in ECA No.04/2018 dated 15.02.2020 by Senior Cvl. Judge and JMFC, MACT, Mudigere, whereby the Tribunal had directed Contractor to pay the compensation to the claimant, the claimant is before this Court. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was employed by the respondent No.1. On 31.10.2017 the deceased worked entire day in respondent No.1 estate and at about 08.00 P.M., as per the direction of respondent No.1 while deceased was repairing weed-cutter machine under the lamp light, at that time deceased caught fire to his body and got injured and succumbed to the same. The respondent No.1 denied the entire averments. According to him, the deceased had never worked with him and infact he is working under respondent No.2/Contractor and therefore, there was no employer- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34977 MFA No. 2802 of 2020 employee relationship between the respondent No.1 and the claimant. 3. The Trial Court by the impugned order had observed that as per Ex.P.6, it reveals that deceased was employed by respondent No.2 and not by respondent No.1, which clearly establishes that there is no employer-employee relationship existing between the claimant and respondent No.1. Accordingly, the Trial Court granted compensation of an amount of Rs.8,28,800/- holding that the Contractor is liable to pay the same. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. M.N.Kunjappan and others1 and submits that even if the deceased was engaged by the Contractor as per Section 12 of the Workmen Compensation Act, it is the principal employer in whose premises the accident had taken place and employer is liable to pay the compensation and he can recover it from the Contractor. Learned counsel appearing for the 1 ACJ 2020 Volume II - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34977 MFA No. 2802 of 2020 appellant/claimant submits that the Trial Court failed to consider all these aspects and had fixed the liability upon the Contractor. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/employer and also the Contractor supported the impugned order and submits that no interference is called for. 6. Having heard learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The undisputed facts in this case are that the deceased was engaged by the respondent No.2 / Contractor to work in respondent No.1’s estate. Accident had occurred while he was working in the estate of respondent No.1’s estate. In view of Section 12 of the Workmen Compensation Act, the initial burden to pay the compensation lies on the employer, in whose premises the accident had occurred and later he can recover the same from the Contractor. In the light of the clear language of Section 12 of the Workmen Compensation Act, i.e., the respondent No.1 being the employer, is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the Contractor. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34977 MFA No. 2802 of 2020 (i) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The order dated 15.02.2020 passed in ECA No.4/2018 by the Tribunal as far as payment of compensation by respondent No.2 is modified and respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from respondent No.2 / Contractor. (iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. (iv) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37