Orissa High Court
Deputy Chief Engineer vs K. Summon Reddy And Another on 4 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.535 of 2014 & FAO No.536 of 2014
(From the judgment dated 8th September, 2014 passed by Shri L.D.
Rath, learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Asst.
Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in W.C. Case No.79-D/2002 & W.C.
Case No.80-D/2002)
In FAO No.535 of 2014
Deputy Chief Engineer .... Appellant
(Construction-I), East Coast Railway,
Khurda Road Division, At/PO-Jatni,
Dist.-Khordha
-versus-
K. Summon Reddy and another .... Respondents
In FAO No.536 of 2014
Deputy Chief Engineer .... Appellant
(Construction-I), East Coast Railway,
Khurda Road Division, At/PO-Jatni,
Dist.-Khordha
-versus-
Niru Pradhan and another .... Respondents
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellants : Mr. Piyush Kumar Mishra, Advocate
( In both the appeals)
For Respondents : Mr. Biswojit Mohanty, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Ramanath Acharya,
Advocate for Respondent No.1.
(In both the appeals)
FAO Nos.535 & 536 of 2014 Page 1 of 4
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
4th May, 2022
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Both the appeals by the employer are directed against common
judgment of the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation-
cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in W.C. Case No.79-D/2002
and W.C. Case No.80-D/2002 wherein compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,84,448/- and Rs.2,43,633/- along with interest @12% per annum
have been directed to be paid in favour of the respective workmen,
namely, Niru Pradhan and K. Suman Reddy.
2. FAO No.535/2014 is in respect of W.C. Case No.80-D/2002
filed by K. Suman Reddy and FAO No.536/2014 is in respect of W.C.
Case No.79-D/2002 filed by Niru Pradhan.
3. The common case of both the workmen-Respondents is that,
while they were working as head mason and mason in roof casting
work of a 3rd storied building at Puri sustained multiple injuries on
24.08.2001 and as such filed the claim for compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act ("W.C. Act").
4. The common challenge in both the appeals are to the effect that
the claimants being engaged through the contractor are not the
employees of the Appellants and as such the Appellants are not entitled
to pay any compensation to them on account of any injury sustained by
them. Secondly, it is submitted that grant of interest on the
compensation amount to the extent of 12% is not payable.
5. Upon hearing both the parties, the admitted fact remains that the
building was constructed by the Railways for Officers Rest House.
When the fact of engagement of the contractor by the Appellants for
construction work of the building is not disputed, the Appellants
become the principal employer and the present claimants as workmen
under the contractor are definitely coming under their employment.
Further, it remains undisputed that the Appellants are having direct
control over the contractor as well as construction of the building.
Therefore, the Appellants being the principal employer cannot get rid
of their statutory liability under the W.C. Act (presently the Employees
Compensation Act, 1921).
6. The quantum of compensation derived by the learned
Commissioner based on the prescribed rate of wages on the date of
accident multiplied by the age factor is seen without any fault and does
not require any interference by this Court.
7. So far as the extent of disability and consequential loss of
earning capacity is concerned, as per the evidence brought on record,
Niru Pradhan sustained 65% disability and K. Suman Reddy sustained
100% disability. Such evidences adduced by both the claimants are
supported with the evidence of the Medical Officer, Dr. Das. Learned
Commissioner relying on the evidence of the claimants supported by
the evidence of the doctor, have assessed their future loss of earning
capacity to the extent of 50% and 60% respectively keeping in view the
nature of injuries sustained by them. As such, no reason is seen there to
interfere with such assessment of the learned Commissioner, which is
well supported with the evidence brought on record.
8. The next contention raised by the Appellant is with regard to
interest component.
9. In the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata and
another, AIR 1976 SC 222 and Kerala State Electricity Board &
another vs. Valsala K. & another, AIR 1999 SC 3502 the position has
been settled that the interest is payable on the compensation amount
from the date of accident. This Court also in the case of Senior
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Suresh
Kumar Behera and another, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 461 (Ori.) have clarified
the position upon an elaborate discussion of the decisions of the
Supreme Court. As such the challenge put forth by the Appellants to
waive out the interest part does not deserve any consideration and in
view of such authoritative pronouncements, the claimants are found
entitled to interest @12% per annum from the date of accident.
10. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and the amount due
to the claimants be paid to both the claimants without further delay.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik/Secretary
