In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.5171 of 2011 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:19.8.2011 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Chairman/MD and others .....Appellants v. Kamla and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. Rishi Pal (since deceased) (workman herein) was got employed by Virat Contractor (respondent No.5) (contractor herein) along with other labourers to execute the work for fixing polls, digging holes for the polls, carrying wires and polls and fixing of transformers and fixing of wires etc. and when on 31.8.2006 at about 11.00 a.m., the workman climbed the poll to install the transformer under the instructions of Nirmal Singh, Foreman under the control and directions of the appellants in the area of Village Dhanora, the electricity supply was disconnected. While he was fixing the wire, somebody restored the supply of electricity as a result of which the F.A.O. No.5171 of 2011 (O&M) [2] workman got electric shock and suffered severe burns and fell on the ground from the poll. He suffered multiple and grievous injuries. He was shifted to C.H.C., Ladwa where he was medico legally examined on 31.8.2006. He became unconscious and was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. He was examined in the PGI, Chandigarh and after treatment he was discharged. The workman also undergone treatment from Kohli Hospital, Yamuna Nagar on 9.9.2006. Due to this accident, he became permanently disabled and confined to bed due to the injuries sustained by him. The workman admittedly sustained 100% permanent disability. The accident had taken place on 31.8.2006. At that time, the workman was aged about 35 years. The workman lost his earning capacity to the extent of 100%. During the pendency of claim petition before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner') the workman died and the claim petition was contested by his legal representatives. The Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Circle Kurukshetra vide order/award dated 21.4.2011 in the claim petition filed by the workman, held him entitled to compensation to the tune of `7,02,085/- including interest and amount of penalty taking the wages of the workman as `3,000/- per month and age 35 years. It was further ordered by the Commissioner that in case the amount of compensation was not deposited with the Commissioner within 30 days from the date of passing of the award, the workman would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the award till its realization from the appellants. It was further ordered by the Commissioner that the appellants would have right to F.A.O. No.5171 of 2011 (O&M) [3] be indemnified by the contractor i.e. (respondent No.5) and Foreman Nirmal Singh official of the appellants. Admittedly, the work had been assigned to the contractor (respondent No.5) by the appellants i.e. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `UHBVN') through its Chairman/MD, Executive Engineer, UHBVN, Kurukshetra, Operation Division and S.D.O., Operation Division, UHBVN, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the award dated 21.4.2011 passed by the Commissioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference in the impugned award so far as merits of the case are concerned. In this case, the appellants are admittedly the principal employer. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the workman was working under the contractor (respondent No.5) engaged by the principal employers i.e. the appellants. It is by now well-settled that where the employee working under contractor engaged by the principal employer had sustained injury, the principal employer will be primarily responsible for complying with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short `the Act') and he will be entitled to claim indemnification under Section 12 of the Act. Section 12 (1) of the Act provides that where the principal employer, in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any contractor for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to F.A.O. No.5171 of 2011 (O&M) [4] any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him. Section 12(2) of the Act further provides that where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this Section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned award so far as merits of the case are concerned. However, the workman will not be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, as ordered by the Commissioner. Instead, the workman will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The impugned award is modified to the extent the interest is payable to the workman. With the above modification in the impugned award, this appeal is hereby dismissed. August 19, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*