Workman's compensation to be paid by organisation in charge:SC

New Delhi, Oct 6 (UNI) The Supreme Court has ruled that in case of an accident, the organisation or the person under whose control the victim was working at the time of accident will be liable to pay the compensation and not the actual employer.

The ruling with wide ramifications for employers, was handed down while allowing an appeal of a Madhya Pradesh based co-operative bank against the directions of the High Court to pay workmen's compensation to the wife of deceased employee Dara Khan who had died on May 5, 1999 while trying to clean a septic tank.

The victim died due to gas leakage from the septic tank.

Dara Khan was the driver of the jeep owned by the appellant Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit which was requisitioned by Rewa district administration for election duty. The services of Khan were also placed at the disposal of the District Election Officer (DEC).

Shahjadi Begum, wife of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. She also moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground with the district collectorate.

The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation allowed the claim petition and directed the appellant bank to pay compensation to the wife of the deceased. The Madhya Pradesh high court also dismissed the appeal of the bank.

Thereafter the bank appealed to the supreme court where a bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Dalveer Bahandari in its judgment on September 29, ruled '' that the term 'employee' has not been defined in the Act.

The definition of employer therefore, embraces within its fold not only a person who employs another either permanently or on temporary basis but also those who were in control of the workman temporarily lent or let on hire to them by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service. It is therefore, a broad definition,'' they said.

''Indisputably, the owner of the jeep was bound to comply with the order of requisition of a vehicle, when the same is required to be placed on election duty. If the deceased was under the control of the bank herein and in effect and substance under the control of the respondent no 2, the Commissioner of workmen Compensation committed a jurisdictional error in directing appellant to deposit the amount of compensation.'' The apex court also said that High Court should have taken a liberal view while condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Observing that''as the jeep was requisitioned under a statute, the bank had no other option but to put the same under the services of requisitioning authority. In terms of requisition, the services of the deceased were also placed. The employer thus would be the requisitioning authority, namely the state of Madhya Pradesh.

We are therefore, of the opinion that the requisitioning authority is liable to pay the amount of compensation. Although state of MP is not a party before us, keeping in view the fact that respondent no 2 was its employee and a jeep was requisitioned under the authority of the District Election Officer, interest of justice would be subserved, if appellant herein, is directed to be reimbursed in respect of the amount which has already been deposited by him in terms of the order of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation,'' the court ruled ordering the amount deposited by bank as compensation be returned to it within eight weeks failing which six percent interest perannum would be levied on the sum till the actual payment.

UNI AKS SC AD VD VC1525