ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. - (1.) THE Land Revenue department of Andaman Administration issued two quarry permits, one to the Executive Engineer, APWD and other one to the Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti, Mayabnunder for extraction and removal of quarry products. Both the permits would contain identical terms and conditions. The relevant clause is quoted below:- "D5. In case of any accidental death of the worker or any other person during quarry operation, the permit holder shall pay the compensation as per the provisions of workmen's compensation Payment Act."
(2.) ONE Sanjit Mistry and one Rana Samaddar were working in the quarry when a large chunk collapsed and the workmen working there including Sanjit and Rana sustained injury. Sanjit and Rana, when brought to the medical centre, were declared dead. The Post-Mortem examination report would show, they sustained injury while they were engaged in quarry operation. They were the respective bread winner of their family. The respective widows appealed for compensation before the Workmen compensation court. The Panchayat Samiti as well as APWD contested their claim by contending, neither Sanjit nor Rana was engaged by them for quarry operation, they were not the workmen within the meaning of Workmen Compensation Act 1923. The facts would reveal, the PWD as well as Panchayat Samati engaged various contractors, who in turn, engaged labourers and Sanjit and Rana might belong to some of them. The Compensation Court rejected such contention by holding, since the death was proved as per Clause 5 the APWD as well as Panchayat Samiti would be obliged to make payment of the compensation. The Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs. 8,78,560.00 payable to the respondents and asked both the authorities to share it equally. We are told, the amount was deposited in court. Being aggrieved, APWD as well as Panchayat Samiti filed two distinct appeals that were heard by us on the above mentioned dates. Mrs. Anjili Nag learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended as follows: i) As per permit, Pramukh was the Principal employer. Pramukh was given notice to show-cause which he did. Notice of hearing was however, not given to him. ii) Neither Sanjit nor Rana was employed by the Panchayat Samiti. Hence, the claimants were not entitled to claim any compensation from the Panchayat Samiti. iii) As per the respective permits, the area was demarcated. Unless it was proved that the accident had occurred within the premises belonged to Panchayat Samiti as per the permit held by them, the liabilities could not be foisted upon them. Elaborating her arguments, Mrs. Nag referred to page 83 of the paper book and contended, the accident occurred in the area where APWD was in control hence they should be asked to pay the compensation. In any event, the learned Judge relied on the field inquiry report that was never served upon the Panchayat Samiti. As per permit, Pramukh was the holder who was not given any opportunity of hearing.
(3.) APPEARING for the APWD Mr. Tabraiz adopted the submissions made by Mrs Nag. He also contended, the learned Judge did not appropriately decide the issue as to whether the deceased were workmen or not. They did not fix up the responsibility by finding out the principal employer. The petition was thus not maintainable before the compensation court.;