case studies of workman compensation

7/28/2019 Case Studies of Workman Compensation

1/6


2/6


3/6


4/6


5/6

In Payyannur Educational Society Vs Narayani, [(1996) 3 Supp LLJ1212] the Kerala High Court rejected the appellants contention.

1. Two workmen while engaged in a land excavating operation, were buried alive under heaps ofmud billowed on them in a landslide and the site became their grave instantaneously,

Dependents of those who died in such a trice made claims for compensation from the owner of

the land (appellant) and two others (respondents 2 and 3). The Workmen's Compensation

Commissioner (for short 'the Commissioner') found that it was the appellant who had employedthem, and on that finding he directed the appellant to pay compensation amount to the

dependents of those two victims. These appeals are in challenge of the common award passed

by the Commissioner.

2. There is no dispute that at the time of the catastrophe the two workmen were engaged inexcavation work on appellant's land. Appellant is a registered society called "Payyannur

Educational Society". Appellant's contentions were that the two workmen were not employed

by the society but they were recruited by the second respondent to whom the society sold soil

at the rate of Rs. 15/- per Lorry load and that the mishap occurred during the operation

undertaken by the second respondent who was permitted by the society to do the excavatorywork and collect the soil. In other words, appellant's main case is that it was not the employer.

3. The Commissioner found that the victims were actually employed by the appellant-societyand hence it was held liable to pay the compensation amount assessed in accordance with the

table prescribed.

Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that as the soil was sold to the secondrespondent, appellant had lost any ownership thereof and hence he cannot be made liable.

What was sold by the appellant was only the soil and not the land. As long as the soil was notseparated and transported, it remained as part of the land. The work involved in transforming

land into soil must necessarily have been done when the ownership and title of the land

remained with the appellant. So the appellant cannot disclaim liability in that line either.

When the legal position is understood thus, we are of the view that appellant is the employervis-a- vis the victims, as per Section 12 of the Act.


6/6

Appellant is therefore liable to pay the compensation due under the Act to the claimants.Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals.

case studies of workman compensation

Documents