The Morarjee Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Mill vs Smt. Ranjana Jaikar and Another

N.J. Pandya, J.—Two cases under Workmen''s Compensation Act were filed by the dependents of the deceased workmen before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner. The Commissioner was pleased to allow the claim in both the matters. The judgment of the learned Commissioner is very short so far as the main aspect of the matter is concerned and on the basis of the material on record, he has appreciated the position correctly and by his order dated 3/4/1996 has awarded the compensation.

The stand of the appellant mill, in both the first appeals, from the beginning was that the employees were never employed by the mill. However, there is no need for them to raise this plea because according to the appellants, before the learned Commissioner also, it was clearly the case of the claimants that the deceased was employed by a Contractor.

However, the learned Commissioner has rightly held that even if the respondents were so employed, the liability of the principal employer will certainly exist. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has held the appellant as respondent No. 1 and the Contractor as respondent No. 2 before him as jointly and severally liable.

Thus the appellant, i.e. the respondent No. 1 before the learned Commissioner has come up in appeal before this Court in both the above first appeals. Belatedly the appellant has raised a plea before this Court of there being E.S.I.C. cover under the E.S.I.C. Act and therefore a further plea based on legal position that the Workmen''s Compensation Act itself will not apply is advanced.

We have gone through the record as also a copy of the written statement filed in the paper book. Not a whisper is to be found about the E.S.I.C. cover and its legal consequences. This being the position in the written statement of the appellant mill before the learned Commissioner, the aforesaid last minute averment, in our opinion, will certainly fail.

However, by an earlier order in a civil application the E.S.I.C. was called upon to clarify its position and one of its officer Mr. Yadneshwaran by filing an affidavit on 16th December, 1996, has clarified their position in no uncertain terms in both the matters.

In case of First Appeal No. 1088 of 1996 he has stated that the deceased workman was not shown on the record of either the mill or nobody else is covered by E.S.I.C., scheme. In respect of First Appeal No. 1089, there seem to be a possibility of the workman being covered but when one turns to para 6 of the affidavit of E.S.I.C. it is further quite clear that no contribution ever was paid to E.S.I.C. As if this is not enough, in keeping with its stand before the Trial Court, no evidence whatsoever has been led by the appellant mill with regard to the said plea of E.S.I.C. coverage.

In our opinion, therefore, there is no substance in both these first appeals and the same are dismissed with costs. Interim relief if any is vacated.