- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3469 OF 2020 (ECA) BETWEEN: NARAYANA SHERIGARA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE SUNDARA, RESIDING AT PAPUJE HOUSE, BOMMARABETTU VILLAGE HIRIYADKA POST, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES, CORPORATIE OFFICE KAVERI BHAVAN K.G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. 2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECL) KEMAR, KARKALA UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 113. 3. JAYADEEP RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 M/S SHANTHI ELECTRICALS KRITHIKA, GOPALPURA SANTHEKATTE POST UDUPI - 576 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SRI. H.V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED. 15.02.2020, PASSED IN ECA NO.2/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION AND THE LABOUR OFFICER, UDUPI, DISMISSING CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the injured/employee seeking to set aside the order dated 15.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Labour Officer, Udupi District & Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, (for short, "the Commissioner") in E.C.A No.2/2019. 2. The occurrence of the accident during the course of employment of the appellant under respondents Nos.1 to 3 and - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 the relationship of employee and employer between them are not in dispute. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 17.05.2004, the employee suffered grievous injury during the course of employment due to electrocution, resulting in permanent disablement i.e., amputation of the left hand up to the elbow level. Thereafter, the respondent - KPTCL, the principal employer of the appellant voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs.1,54,737/- as compensation before the Commissioner to be payable to the appellant, subject to recovering of same from his immediate employer i.e., the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, the Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings and allowed the appellant to withdraw the amount deposited. Aggrieved by which, the 3rd respondent filed MFA.No.521/2007 before this Court. This Court allowed the said appeal in part, directing payment of deposited amount in favour of the appellant with liberty to the 1st respondent - KPTCL to recover the same from the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the appellant filed a representation dated 19.10.2016 to the respondents claiming that since he was unable to earn his livelihood which had - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 deprived him his Right to Life, the respondent being a statutory Corporation, shall provide him an alternate employment so as to eke his livelihood. As the said representation had not been considered by the respondents - employer, the appellant filed WP.No.6369/2017 seeking appointment under compensatory grounds on account of accidental injuries. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of granting liberty to the appellant to approach the competent authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.779/2018. The Division Bench dismissed the said appeal, however, granted liberty to the appellant to approach the respondents - employer to claim further compensation in accordance with law from respondent Nos.1 and 3 and if they failed to consider the same, the appellant was granted liberty to approach the competent forum for adequate compensation. Accordingly, since the request of the appellant was not considered by the respondents - employer, the appellant filed ECA.No.62/2019 before the commissioner. 4. The Commissioner in ECA.No.62/2019, however, framed an additional issue as to whether the petition filed by the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 appellant/employee is maintainable before the said forum and dismissed the said petition as not maintainable. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-employee would contend that the Commissioner has grossly erred while dismissing the claim petition primarily on the ground of maintainability by ignoring the statutory claim of the appellant in terms of the provisions contained under Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act (for brevity, "the Act"), that too, ignoring the specific direction of the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 26.10.2017 passed in WP.No.6369/2017 which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.779/2018 disposed of on 27.08.2018. According to him, the reasoning of the Commissioner that the employee had earlier approached the Commissioner in WCA/CR-22/NF/2006 and compensation awarded in the said case was affirmed by this Court in - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 MFA.521/2007 dated 10.11.2008 is totally misconceived, since, at no point of time, the appellant-employee has filed a petition under Section 22 of ECA, claiming compensation before the Commissioner, and that WCA/CR-22/NF/2006 was initiated suo motu by the Commissioner in order to disburse the compensation amount voluntarily deposited by the employer. Aggrieved by the said order, it was respondent No.3 who filed MFA.No.521/2007 before this Court. As such, the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 22 of ECA Act cannot be construed as the second petition. He, therefore, contended that the Commissioner ought to have adjudicated the claim petition on merits obeying the order of this Court. Accordingly, he would pray for allowing the appeal either by awarding compensation or by remanding the matter to the Commissioner for adjudication of the claim petition filed by the appellant on merits. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents - employer would contend that the Commissioner was justified in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable in view of the earlier petition under WCA/CR- - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 22/NF/2006, which was affirmed by this Court in MFA.No.521/2007 dated 10.11.2008. According to her, the liberty granted to the appellant by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by him seeking appointment under compensatory grounds on account of accidental injuries, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, was only to a limited extent to approach the employer namely the Corporation and the Contractor for adequate compensation in accordance with law and on failure, he was granted liberty to approach the Competent Forum for adequate compensation. However, the said liberty does not entail the appellant to file a fresh claim petition under Section 22 of the Act for adequate compensation having received the compensation in the earlier petition, which has attained finality. Hence, the Commissioner was justified in dismissing the claim petition as not maintainable. 9. Notwithstanding the aforesaid contention, she would also contend that in the earlier claim petition, the Commissioner has awarded just compensation by considering the relevant factor and the income of the claimant - employee. In such - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 circumstances, even if hypothetically it is presumed that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Commissioner, then also the appellant would not be entitled for any further compensation. With these submissions, she would pray to dismiss the appeal. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. 11. As could be gathered from records, the present case has a checkered history. It is not in dispute that on 17.05.2004, the employee suffered grievous injury during the course of employment due to electrocution, resulting in permanent disablement i.e., amputation of the left hand up to the elbow level. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had voluntarily deposited the compensation of Rs.1,54,737/- before the Commissioner. Upon such deposit, the Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings in WCA/CR-22/NF/2006 to disburse the said compensation to the appellant, however, liberty was granted to respondent No.2 to recover the same from respondent No.3. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 Though it is observed in the impugned order that, WCA/CR- 22/NF/2006 has been filed by the appellant for compensation, on careful scrutiny of documents, it is seen that the said petition has not been filed by the appellant under Section 22 of ECA, on the other hand, it was the proceeding initiated suo motu by the Commissioner for disbursement of compensation voluntarily deposited by respondent No.2 before the Commissioner. In such circumstances, the primary contention of the respondents - employer that the present claim petition filed by the employee is not maintainable as the same amounts to res judicata, is untenable. 12. Moreover, in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for appointment under compensatory grounds, there is a clear observation by the Co-ordinate Bench, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. The said observation of the Co-ordinate Bench reads as under: "5. Be that as it may, the issue for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether there is any obligation cast in law on the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner. Even if all aspects relating to the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 manner in which the accident has occurred and the injuries suffered by the petitioner which has resulted in permanent disability if any, is taken note, in that regard, it is needless to mention that in law the respondents being the principle employer, would be liable to compensate the employee and recover such amount from the Contractor depending on the contractual relationship between the principle employer and the Contractor. 6. If that be the position in the instant case, the sum of Rs.1,54,737/- which has been paid to the petitioner by the respondents, no doubt has been recovered from the Contractor. Even if the employee of the respondent is found to be negligent in causing the accident, the same could only become a basis for the petitioner to claim appropriate compensation and not seek for employment with the principle employer in that regard. Therefore, to the said extent the representation as made by the petitioner seeking for employment would not arise for consideration by the respondents. However, in the facts and circumstances, if the petitioner in fact has suffered such disability and the earning capacity is reduced by 100% as - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 claimed in the petition and in that light if the amount of compensation which is paid by the respondents is not sufficient or satisfy the requirement in law, it would still be open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority as provided under the Employees’ Compensation Act seeking for an appropriate compensation to be determined and be paid in that regard. To such proceedings, in any event, the respondent as principle employer would also be a party along with the Contractor and the petitioner as well. Therefore, to the said extent the liberty is reserved to the petitioner at the outset to indicate the actual disability that has been suffered by him and seek for appropriate compensation jointly from the respondents as well as the contractor under whom the petitioner had worked. If such compensation as demanded by the petitioner is not paid by them, the petitioner is granted the further liberty of approaching the competent authority and if such claim is preferred before the competent authority, keeping in view the factual situation in the instant case and the proceedings that have been held thusfar, the delay shall be condoned and the claim petition - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 shall be considered on its merits and in accordance with law." 13. On careful perusal of the above, it is clear that the appellant was granted liberty to approach the employers i.e., respondents 2 and 3 for adequate compensation and on failure for consideration of his request by them, he was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum for compensation. Accordingly, the appellant issued a legal notice on 01.02.2019 to the employers - respondents 2 and 3 seeking adequate compensation. Since the said request was not acceded to, left with no other alternative, as this Court had granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum, the appellant preferred a claim petition under Section 22 of ECA, for the first time before the Commissioner. As such, I am of the considered view that the claim petition filed by the appellant is maintainable. 14. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the employers that adequate compensation has already been granted by the Commissioner considering the relevant factor and the income of the claimant - employee and hence, no purpose would be served even if the matter is remanded to the - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 Commissioner cannot be accepted, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director BAMUL vs Smt. Nirupama and Others in MFA No.6905/2018 wherein it is categorically held that in proceedings under the Employees' Compensation Act, the statutory cap on monthly wages is no longer required to be applied and the actual monthly wages established by acceptable evidence are liable to be taken into consideration for computing compensation. Thus, viewed from any angle, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Commissioner. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for consideration of the claim petition filed by the appellant. (iii) The parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 15.09.2026 without expecting any further notice from the Commissioner. - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010237612020 NC: 2026:KHC:41150 MFA No. 3469 of 2020 (iv) The Commissioner is directed to consider the petition, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within an outer limit of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5