Chief Executive Officer And Ors vs Khitish Chakraborty And Ors

Heard Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the judgment dated 02.05.2018 passed in T.S.(EC) 05 of 2014 for setting aside the award passed by the learned Commissioner Employees Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala.

The main contention of the plaintiff-respondents, who are the parents of the deceased-employee are that, their son, namely, Biswajit Chakraborty was a worker under the appellant-TTAADC and in course of his employment, while working on 30.06.2013 as a mason for construction of roof of one building, he met an accident as he touched the live wire through one iron rod and succumbed to his injuries. The said suit was opposed by TTAADC, the appellant herein on the ground that they never employed the son of the claimants.

Mr. A. De, learned counsel had argued the case on the last occasion i.e., on 21.05.2020. Today, he did not appear before this Court when the appeal was taken up for hearing as part heard. Appearing in favour of the plaintiff-respondents, Mr. De, learned counsel had strenuously argued that Biswajit Chakraborty, the deceased was appointed as mason by a contractor who was appointed by the TTAADC to execute the construction work. However, Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the claimant-respondents herein have failed to produce any scrap of paper to establish that the son of the claimants was at any point of time engaged as a mason by TTAADC. From the plaint, it is also revealed that the claimants have not impleaded the contractor, Ranjit Saha under whom their son was alleged to be engaged as mason.

I have perused the judgment of the learned Commissioner, wherein, relying upon Section 2(f) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 he came to the finding that the son of the claimants was an employee of the contractor and the said contractor, Ranjit Saha was a manager under the appellant. So, since, the deceased son of the claimants was engaged by the said contractor, their son should be treated as an employee under the appellant. Having held so, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation in favour of the claimant-respondents.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the evidence on record, it is found that the parents-claimants did not produce any document to establish the fact that Ranjit Saha at any point of time was engaged as contractor under the appellants.

Section 2(f) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 defines managing agent which reads as under:-

"2(f) - "managing agent" means any person appointed or acting as the representative of another person for the purpose of carrying on such other person‟s trade or business, but does not include an individual manager subordinate to an employer."

Explaining the scope of this definition, the Supreme Court in Public Works Depertmant Vs. Kaunsa,

(1966) 12 FLR 135 (SC) had held that:-

"Chief Engineer of PWD managing the department on behalf of the State Government held, a „managing agent‟ of the Government within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f)."

In the present case, it is specifically pleaded and adduced by evidence that the deceased-person was engaged as a mason by a contractor when he met the unfortunate accident. As such, the deceased son of the claimants cannot be treated as a worker under the appellants and thus, does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the Employees Compensation Act 1923.

The plaintiff-respondents have failed to establish the employer-employee relationship within the purview of Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. The judgement and award dated 02.05.2018 passed by learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation, West Tripura in connection with case No. T.S.(EC) 05 of 2014 awarding compensation of Rs. 6,60,000/-(Rupees six lakhs sixty thousand) along with interest is set aside and quashed.

The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.