Chander Prabha Ahuja vs Mohammad Iftikhar

M.L. Singhal, J.—Vide order dated 21.9.2000 Annexure P-4, of Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 Circle I Gurgaon, the prayer of Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja (petitioner-herein) for impleading Mohammad Mushtaq, resident of Labour Colony, Gurgaon as respondent No. 4 in the claim application titled Mohammad Iftikhar s/o Mohammad Zafrul Haq v. Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja (2) Kalyan Singh (3) Insurance Company, if any, particulars to be disclosed by respondents 1 and 2, was declined. It is this order which Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja has challenged through this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. She has prayed that order Annexure P-4 be set aside and she be allowed to implead Mohammad Mushtaq resident of Labour Colony, Sector 10, Gurgaon. This revision has arisen in the following circumstances :-

Mohammad Iftikhar Alam filed application u/s 19 read with Section 22 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 for the grant of compensation/award to him against Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja, Kalyan Singh and the insurance company, if any, particulars to be disclosed by Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja and Kalyan Singh. It is alleged in this application that he was skilled in binding lintel working for the last more than 6 years in binding lintel. He has worked at numerous places at Gurgaon with other skilled labourers under the contractors at the time of the construction of the house. He is a "workman" as defined in Section 2(1)(n) of Schedule II of the Workman Compensation Act. Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja is owner in possession of residential plot No. A-15/13, Phase I, DLF Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon. She entered into an agreement dated 11.10.98 with Kalyan Singh who is a building contractor for constructing house on the said plot according to the terms and conditions set out in the said agreement. Construction work was going on. He is skilled steel fitter possessing more than 6 years experience. He was doing the work of binding of lintel on that plot. He was in the course of employment of Kalyan Singh on daily wages during February, 1999 along with many other labourers and masons on the site including his real brother Iftar Mohammad. He along with his brother Iftar Mohammad went to the site on 20.2.1999 for binding rods of lintel on the roof of the second storey. There was a live electricity line existing adjacent to the site. Before starting work, the petitioner and his brother asked Kalyan Singh for the discontinuance of light of the said line for some period to avoid danger. Kalyan Singh and Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja told them that telephone message had been sent to the concerned official and they should work without any fear of any sort and they did the work whole day. On 21.2.1999, he along with Shamsher Alam son of Mohammad Sahadat, Rajar Mohammad and Zakir Mohammad son of Hashmuddin all went to the second floor for binding the iron rods and started the work but before starting the work they requested Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja and Kalyan Singh for the discontinuance of the supply of the adjacent electric line and they told that there was no electricity in the line because they had sent message on the telephone and they should keep working without any fear. At about 9-9.30 AM op 21.2.1999, when he along with Shamsher Alam etc. was binding the rods, which was in both of his hands, suddenly touched the adjacent electric line and he suffered electric shot (shock ?) because the adjacent electric line was live and Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja and Kalyan Singh misguided him. He suffered serious and grievous injuries on both the hands, both legs and back. Shamsher Alam also suffered injuries on his head, legs and hands. Mohammad Iftikhar Alam was become permanently disabled because both of his hands had to be amputated in the hospital where treatment was given to him.

In the claim application, he has alleged that this ghastly accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act exclusively of Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja and Kalyan Singh who misguided him by saying that the electricity of the adjacent line had been discontinued. Case FIR No. 65 of 1999 was registered at PS DLF Qutab Enclave against Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja and Kalyan Singh under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. A sum of Rs. 5 lac was claimed as compensation from Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja and Kalyan Singh along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation for permanent disablement suffered by him because of extreme rashness and negligence on their part. He suffered this permanent disablement of amputation of both of his hands during the course of and arising out of his employment with them.

Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja contested this claim application urging that Kalyan Singh had been engaged by her to construct building for her. He was building contractor engaged by her for the construction of building by her. There was no privity of contract between her and Mohammad Iftikhar Alam. She never paid him wages. He was never her employee. It was denied that she ever told him that telephone message had been sent to the concerned official for the discontinuance of the supply of electricity on the adjacent line, It was denied that she asked him to continue working despite this hazard.

Impleadment of Mohammad Mushtaq as respondent to the claim application was sought by Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja on the ground that she gave contract to Kalyan Singh who further entered into an agreement/contract with Mohammad Mushtaq son of Mohammad Ayub who employed Mohammad Iftikhar Alam and others for binding lintel. In support of this submission that there was a contract between Mohammad Mushtaq and Kalyan Singh, my attention was drawn to Annexure P-3 whereby contractor Mohammad Mushtaq undertook to do the steel binding job as per the approved drawing at A-15/13, DLF, Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon. Kalyan Singh agreed to pay the steel contractor at the agreed rate of Rs. 650/- per tonne. It was submitted that Mohammad Iftikhar Alam was engaged by Mohammad Mushtaq for binding lintel at A-15/13, DLF, Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon.

In my opinion, Mohammad Mushtaq is not a necessary party to this claim application. It was Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja on whose residential plot, house was being constructed. Kalyan Singh was a binding contractor who undertook to raise building on that residential building for Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja. It was for Kalyan Singh to engage any body else to execute this contract entered into by him with Smt. Chander Prabha Ahuja. In Section 2(1)(b) of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 a contract labour has been defined as :- A workman shall be deemed to be employed as contract labour in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor with or without the knowledge of principal employer. Section 2(1)(c) defines "Contractor" in relation to an establishment, as a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other, than a mere supplier of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. It is thus clear that Mohammad Mushtaq is not a necessary party to the claim application. Mohammad Iftikhar shall be viewed as in the employment of Chander Prabha Ahuja or Kalyan Singh or both.

This matter can be viewed from another angle also. In the construction of a building, many operations are involved upto the completion of the building. A labour contractor may have to engage various sub contractors during the course of the execution of the work of constructing a building. These sub contractors will not be necessary party to such a claim application.

In view of what has been said above, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.