-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.27125 OF 2006 APPEAL ST.NO.27125 OF 2006 APPEAL ST.NO.27125 OF 2006 Union of India ...Appellant vs. Rahim Mehboob Sayyed & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.N.R.Prajapati a/w Mr.N.S.Bhate i/b Mr.H.R.Rathod the Appellant Mr.Vivek Salunkhe for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 25, 2008 : FEBRUARY 25, 2008 : FEBRUARY 25, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocates for the parties. The Appeal is preferred by the Union of India-original second opponent in the claim petition filed by the first Respondent under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923. 2. The case of the first Respondent is that he was employed by the second Respondent herein and the second Respondent was a contractor. The case of the first Respondent is that for a period of five years prior to the date of the accident, he was working as a Mason with the Appellant at MES Air Force Station, Lohagaon, Pune. On 7th August 1993 while the first Respondent was doing the building work on the third floor at the height of 40 feet, the wooden plank tied with the rope on which he was standing slipped and he fell down on the ground. The first Respondent suffered multiple fracture. Permanent disability suffered by him has been assessed at 40%. -2- 3. The claim was contested by the second Respondent by contending that he was a contractor with MES Building Construction. It is denied that the first Respondent was in the employment of the second Respondent. There was a general denial of the incident by the second Respondent. The Appellant filed a written statement contending that the Appellant was not aware of the alleged employment of the first Respondent with the second Respondent. It was submitted that the contract between the Appellant and the Second respondent was still subsisting. 4. The learned Commissioner accepted the case made out by the first Respondent and considering the fact that the first Respondent was employed on daily wages of Rs.85/- per day, directed the Appellant and other opponents to the claim petition to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the first Respondent. 5. The submission of the Advocate for the Appellant is that the learned Commissioner has not considered the evidence on record. It is submitted that the mandatory requirement of serving a notice under section 10 of the said Act of 1923 was not complied with as no such notice was served to the Appellant. It was submitted that the Appellant was not liable to pay compensation. 6. The learned Commissioner found that the second Respondent -3- was working as a petty contractor on the construction site of the Appellant. The first Respondent received wages from the third Respondent who was the petty contractor of the second Respondent. 7. During the pendency of the claim petition, an amendment was carried out and the present Appellant was impleaded. The learned Commissioner rightly observed that when the claim application was filed, the first Respondent was not aware as to who was the principal employer at the site of the construction and that is the reason why the Appellant was subsequently impleaded as the party after the first Respondent came to know that the Appellant was the principal employer. Therefore, the learned Commissioner did not accept the challenge of the Appellant on the ground of non service of notice under section 10 of the said Act of 1923. The learned Commissioner has considered the documentary evidence on record including the deposition of the Medical Practitioner who issued the certificate of disability, on the basis of which the compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the learned Commissioner. 8. I find no substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. Civil Application No.5215 of 2006 does not survive and the -4- same is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE