PATHERYA J. - (1.) 1. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction upon the Licensing Company to proceed in accordance with law in respect of payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased labourer.
(2.) Petitioners' Case 2.1 The case of the petitioner is that a job work was awarded to it by the licensing company for intensification of Mouza Jatragachi J.L. No.24. In the course of execution of the said work one of its labourers, Samar Ghosh, died due to fall of a PCC pole on the deceased. Therefore the question which needs for consideration is whether the licensing company or the petitioner is liable for payment of compensation to the family of the deceased. Proceedings have been initiated under the Workmen's Compensation Act being Claim Case No.375 of 2006. 2.2 Clause VIII of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contract dated 8th March, 2006 is void in view of Section 67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (2003 Act), which imposes a liability on the licensee. The contract contains certain set forms and there can be no estoppel against statute. For the said proposition reliance is placed on AIR 1986 SC 1571. Therefore Clause VIII of the Terms and Conditions be declared void in view of Section 67(3) of the 2003 Act and the licensing company be directed to make payment of compensation to the family of the deceased.
(3.) Case of the Licensing Company (WBSEB). 3.1 Counsel for the licensing company submits that Section 67(3) has no application as no regulations have been framed under Section 53 and in view of Section 185 (2C), Rules 36, 44(A) and 45 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 will be applicable. Section 161 of the 2003 Act deals with accidents and postulates issuance of notice of the occurrence and the loss or injury caused by such accidents and inquiries. 3.2 In the instant case there has been no compliance of Section 161 of the 2003 Act and for non-issuance of notice no inspection could be made. No blame or liability can be attached to the licensing company either in common law or under the Regulations or the 2003 Act. For the said proposition reliance is placed on 1968 Lab.IC 1079. 3.3 From the finding of the Assistant Engineer, Basirhat R. E. Commission, WBSEB it will appear that the accident has occurred at a place where the feeder of licensing company is defunct and abandoned. Therefore, the accident cannot be related to the work undertaken. 3.4 For all the said reasons this application is not maintainable as the death of the deceased cannot be attributed to the licensing company.;