1 2025:CGHC:25969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1720 of 2017 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its General Manager, S E C L Bhatgaon Area, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Sukhmen W/o Late Kannilal, R/o Village Batra, Thana Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sirmen Bai D/o Late Kannilal, R/o Village Batra, Thana Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Tilochni D/o Late Kannilal, R/o Village Batra, Thana Jainagar, Tahsil Sura- jpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattis- garh 4 - Sanny S/o Late Kannilal, R/o Village Batra, Thana Jainagar, Tahsil Sura- jpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattis- garh 5 - Phoolmati D/o Late Kannilal, R/o Village Batra, Thana Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Proprietor M/s R.K.Construction, Behind Railway School, Menendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimants, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Adv. For Respondent No. 6 : None appears, despite repeated calls. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. Appellant/South Eastern Coalfields Limited has preferred instant Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.06.23 17:28:50 +0530 2 appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Act of 1923’) challenging the award dated 20.03.2017, passed by the Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, Labour Court, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, in Case No. 63/E.C.Act/2009/Fatal. 2. Facts of the case are that, the deceased Kannilal, who was husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 to 5. met with an accident on 30-3-2009, while working on the Railway track when he got entangled in the overhead electric lines and got electrocuted. He was taken to the SECL hospital, Bishrampur immediately and referred to Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur and on 5-4-2009, he died during treatment. The respondent No. 1 along with respondents No. 2 to 5 filed a claim bearing Case No. 63/EC Act/2009 Fatal, before the Commissioner, Employee Compensation Act, Labour Court, Ambikapur (CG) (henceforth, referred to as ‘the Commissioner’), claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest and penalty. 3. The respondent No. 6/Non-applicant No. 1 filed written statement, stating therein that, respondent No. 6 is a contractor. Vide letter dated 24-2-2009, the appellant/non-applicant No. 2 awarded contract to the respondent No. 6/non-applicant No. 1 for maintenance of Bhatgaon railway track, and a letter was issued to him to deposit 5% security deposit along with documents as directed to him. But the required documents could not be deposited by the respondent No. 6/contractor within 60 days, therefore, the appellant cancelled the work order on 5- 6-2009. He has denied that on 30-3-2009, deceased Kannilal was 3 working as skilled labour under the respondent No. 6 Rajesh Kumar Mishra and he died during the work, for which, the respondent No. 6 is responsible. It has been pleaded that the respondent had not started work and had not employed deceased or any labour for said work. Thus, deceased was not his employee, therefore, liability cannot be fastened upon him. 4. The appellant/non-applicant No. 2 also filed their written statement and pleaded that deceased Kannilal was neither employed as labour by it, nor it was his employer. Rather, the respondent No. 6 / non- applicant No. 1 is responsible for payment of compensation, if any. 5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Labour Court framed as many as 7 issues, recorded evidence and vide impugned award, awarded compensation amount of Rs. 5,12,356/- with 12% interest per annum from 5-4-2009 against the appellant being principal employer. 6. The appellant/SECL has preferred this appeal challenging the impugned award on the ground that, contract of maintenance of railway siding of Bhatgaon to Karanji rail line was given to respondent No. 6 Rajesh Kumar Mishra, who was proprietor of R.K. Construction and deceased employee was employed by him, therefore, being principal employer, liability has been fastened upon the appellant SECL, but it is not held entitled to be indemnified the amount paid by it from the contractor / respondent No. 6. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, as per section 12 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth referred to as ‘Act of 1923’), respondent No. 6/ M/s. R.K. Construction was responsible for payment of compensation. The deceased was employee of respondent No. 6 and the deceased died during employment, while performing maintenance work of Bhatgaon Railway Siding Track. Though the respondent No. 6/contractor Rajesh Kumar Mishra has taken stand that, the deceased was not his employee and alleged incident also did not take place during the course of execution of any contract work of the SECL, whereas, for maintenance of Bhatgaon Railway Siding track, in pursuance of NIT dated 20-12-2008 (Annexure A-2) issued by the appellant/SECL, being lowest bidder, bid of respondent No. 6 was accepted and contract agreement was executed between appellant/SECL and Rajesh Kumar Mishra, who was proprietor of M/s. R.K. Construction and under the agreement, being employee of respondent No. 6, the deceased was performing his duty when he got electrocuted. Learned counsel further submits that, though being principal employer, appellant is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, but in view of provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1923, the appellant/Principal employer is entitled to recover the same from the respondent No. 6/contractor, which is also provided in Clause 12(iv) of the NIT agreement. Hence, the instant appeal may be allowed and amount of compensation paid by the appellant/SECL may be directed to be recovered from the respondent No. 6/contractor. 8. Though Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6/ 5 contractor, but none present on his behalf when the case was taken for hearing. It is also mentionable here that, earlier vide order dated 2-1- 2018, this MAC was disposed of by the Coordinate bench holding therein that, no case is made out in appeal calling for an interference with the impugned award. However, in aforesaid order, the coordinate bench has held that, the principal employer/SECL shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the contractor in terms of conditions of the contract and the letter of indemnification given by the contractor to the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent No. 6/ Rajesh Kumar Mishra filed review petition No. 23/2018 stating inter alia that, the order dated 2-1-2018 has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to him. Therefore, aforesaid order was recalled by the coordinate bench vide order dated 11-4-2018 and the case was restored in its original number. Despite that, none appears for respondent no. 6. 9. Sukhmen (AW 1) is wife of late Kannilal. She has deposed that, on 30- 3-2009, her husband Kannilal was working as employee of M/s. R.K. Construction and performing work of maintenance of Bhatgaon railway siding. That time, he met with an accident, as electric line of rail track fell upon him, therefore, he got electrocuted and died on 5-4-2009 in hospital. This fact has also been supported by Dholaram (AW 2), who was also working there at the time of accident. Ex. P-9 is carbon copy of complaint made by deceased Kannilal to the Station House Officer, PS Bhatgaon regarding aforesaid accident. Ex. P-8 is complaint made by Sanyukt Koyla Majdoor Sangh to the Station House Officer, PS Bhatgaon dated 6-4-2009. These documents also support the 6 statement of applicant No. 1 and her witnesses that, while performing duty in railway track, electric wire of railway track fell upon Kannilal, therefore, he got electrocuted and subsequently, he died. Therefore, Merg report was also lodged in P.S Gandhi Nagar, Sarguja and various proceedings were conducted along with inquest and post mortem vide Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-5. 10. Though, claimants have not filed any document issued by respondent No. 6 M/s. R.K. Construction or its proprietor Rajesh Kumar Mishra regarding employment of deceased, but from oral and documentary evidence produced on record, it is very well proved that, deceased Kannilal had died during his employment for maintenance of railway line and its electric work of Bhatgaon railway siding, that time, he was electrocuted. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, proprietor of respondent No. 6 himself has admitted in his written statement that vide, letter dated 5412 dated 24-2-2009, the appellant SECL had entrusted work of maintenance of Bhatgaon Railway track between Bhatgaon to Karanji railway line, but work order of same was cancelled on 5-6-2009. Date of accident of instant case was 30-3-2009 and as per admission of respondent No. 6, on that date, the work order was in existence. Thouth appellant has pleaded in its reply, that respondent No. 6/non- applicant No. 1 is responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants, but detailed fact about said contract and labours / employees engaged by respondent No. 6 has neither been pleaded by the appellant / SECL in its pleading nor relevant documents/evidence in this regard has been filed/adduced by it. 7 11. Though, documents with regard to employment of deceased with the respondent No. 6 has not been filed, but nothing has been brought in cross-examination of Sukhmen (AW 1), who is wife of deceased Kannilal and Dholaram (AW 2), who himself was working as labour on the spot at the time of accident, and he has specifically deposed in his deposition that deceased Kannilal was working as employee of R.K. Construction/respondent No. 6 at Railway siding, when he got electrocuted. Nothing has been brought in his cross-examination to disbelieve their aforesaid statement, particularly statement of Dholaram (AW 2), who is eye-witness of the incident. Aforesaid fact also gets support from documents Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-13 upto some extent and also from pleading of written statement of respondent No. 6 Rajesh Kumar Mishra, in which, he has admitted that work order was issued by the appellant SECL in his favour on 24-2-2009 for maintenance of railway track and it was effective on the date of incident i.e. 30-3-2009, though it was cancelled on 5-6-2009. 12. Respondent No. 6 Rajesh Kumar Mishra, proprietor of M/s. R.K. Construction has not adduced any evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants, whereas, from the evidence adduced by the claimants, they have succeeded to prove their case, as such, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner granting compensation to the claimants and fastening liability upon the appellant SECL. 13. Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 provides as under :- 8 “12. Contracting.- (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 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 9 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 agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx” 14. Perusal of aforesaid provisions shows that, if any employer got executed any work for the purpose of his trade or business under the contract from contractor, then, if any employee of the contractor is required to be paid any compensation against the execution of work, the principal employer shall pay the compensation and he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor. 15. In instant case, deceased Kannilal was employed by respondent No. 6, who was entrusted contract of maintenance of railway siding between Bhatgaon to Karanji rail track by the appellant and while performing his duty, Kannilal electrocuted because electric wire of railway track fell upon him and, as a result thereof, subsequently he died on 5-4-2009. Therefore, appellant and respondent No. 6, both are responsible to pay compensation to the claimants / respondents No. 1 to 5 herein. But, because of principal employer, appellant SECL is liable to satisfy the impugned award and then, it is entitled to be indemnified by respondent No. 6/ contractor. 10 16. In view of above, instant appeal is allowed to the extent that appellant is held responsible to pay the compensation as awarded by the Commissioner, employees’ Compensation Act, Labour Court, Ambikapur (CG) vide impugned award dated 20-3-2017 to the claimants and thereafter, it shall be entitled to be indemnified by the respondent No. 6/contractor. 17. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak