Skip to main content

Principal employer shoulders the liability of employee: Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has laid down a substantial point of law, saying the liability towards an employee engaged by a contractor or managing agent is on the principal employer.

The court recently upheld the decision of 'Mumbai Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation' to award monetary relief to a worker, who died in an accident despite the fact that he was not employed by the principal employer but by a contractor.

Justice A H Joshi was hearing an appeal filed by United Assurance Company Ltd, which challenged the award of compensation to a driver who was hired by M G M Motors to transport vehicles on behalf of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (M&M).

The Judge noted that this being an appeal under The Employees' Compensation Act, the appellant has to substantiate the challenge on substantial questions of law.

He directed the appellant's advocate K V Vitonde to pin point and address the court on substantial question of law whether a principal employer would be liable to pay compensation to a worker employed by a managing agency.

Admittedly, the victim was not employed by M&M, a top auto firm, which owned the vehicles. The victim was rather employed by M G M Motors to whom the work/contract for transport of vehicles was entrusted by the auto company.

The vehicles were required to be transported by a driver, Sureshkumar Parasnath Singh, engaged by M G M Motors on behalf of M&M. Thus, the HC held the liability towards an employee engaged by contractor or a managing agent is on the principal employer (in this case M&M).

It was suggested that since the driver was engaged by M G M Motors, the appellant (United India Assurance) does not have the liability towards payment of compensation.

The HC, however, said it is not proved that due to any terms of contract between the two sides, the liability towards employees' compensation was to be borne by M G M Motors.

Irrespective of terms, the employee concerned is seen to be entitled to receive the compensation, the Judge remarked and dismissed the appeal finding no merit in it.

Article referred to : http://www.indianexpress.com/news/principal-employer-shoulders-the-liability-of-employee-bombay-high-court/1123182/2

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more