Death Of Workman By Heart Attack Is Accident Attributable To Employment Causes; Principal Employee Not Liable For Additional Liability: Bombay HC

“…the principal employer, who is made liable to pay compensation by extended arm under Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the interest and penalty. Such liability would remain on employer only for his default”, a bench of Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar observed in the matter.

In the present matter, as per the averments made the deceased Rafique Khalifa was employed as a driver on water tanker owned by Respondent no.4. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, and Block Development Officer, Respondent nos.1 and 2 (present appellants) respectively had a contract with Respondent no.3 for water supply during the summer of 2013.

However, the deceased while performing his duty died on April 23, 2013 due to cardiac arrest/ heart attack.

It was contended that the deceased was on a 24 hours duty where he was required to fill the water tanker from a distance of more than 60 kilometers. It was further contended that the work of water supply was continuous causing mental and physical stress to deceased consequently, he suffered a heart attack.

Upon approaching the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, after hearing the parties it directed the respondents to jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.6,39,000/- to the applicants along with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

The respondents were further directed to pay a penalty of 50% of the compensation amount i.e Rs.3,19,600/- in terms of Section 4-A (2) (b) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.

Therefore, the original Respondents 1 and 2 approached the Court challenging the impugned judgment and award dated July 22, 2022 passed by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Ahmednagar, under Section 4 (1) (a) of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.

Now the questions before the Court to consider were:

-Whether the deceased died during the course of the employment.

The bench was of the opinion that “the pleading in written statement submitted by the respondent No. 1 and 2 shows that they have admitted existence of contract with respondent no.3 for water supply to the different villages so also fact that the water tanker in question was engaged by respondent no.3 for execution of the said work. In view of the specific admission on record, there is no reason to look into any other material and draw the adverse conclusion against the applicants”.

-Whether death of the deceased can be attributed to employment causes.

The Court noting the circumstances opined, “It was continuous job involving physical and mental stress. Even the witness of respondents Dilip Sonkusle, Block Development Officer specifically admitted in the cross-examination that during the summer season the services of water supply goes on for 24 hours. He admits that the water supply was required to be made within the 60 kilometre radius at wadies and villages. All these circumstances are sufficient to conclude that the work of deceased was involving physical and mental stress”.

-Whether the liability of principal employer in terms of Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensations Act, particularly in respect of penalty and interest under Section 4 (A) (3) (b) be imposed.

While citing Sarjerao Unkar Jadhav Vs. Gurindar Singh and Ors. 1990 Mh. L. J. 790 which highlights that the statute has recognized three components viz. compensation, interest and penalty, the Court answering in negation observed, “The fundamental liability of employer is to deposit compensation within one month from the date when it becomes due. Add-on liability to pay interest and penalty are the consequences of default or failure of discharge of the fundamental liability. It is, therefore, clear that for failure to comply with statutory obligation on the part of the employer he can be saddled with additional liability to pay interest and penalty, however the principal employer, who is made liable to pay compensation by extended arm under Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the interest and penalty. Such liability would remain on employer only for his default”.

The bench thus, while upholding the award to pay compensation directed Chairman Harshawardhan Patil Sahalari Motor Vahatuk Sanstha Limited, and Kadarkhan Kasamkhan Pathan the present applicants and the original respondents no 3 and 4 respectively to e to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount to the applicants from April 23, 2013 till realization along with penalty at the rate of 50% of the compensation amount.

Cause Title: Chief Executive Officer v Smt. Suraiyya Rafik Khalifa [Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-AUG:15725]