Civil Revision No. 6928 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6928 of 2011 Date of decision. 17.11.2011 M/s Shiv Shakti Rice Mills, Nissing and others .... Petitioners Versus Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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.Vivek Sakhun,Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. In a proceedings brought for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act by the heirs of Raj Kumar, Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Karnal has dismissed the application of M/s Shiv Shakti Rice Mills, Nissing and others the petitioners, for impleading Jai Bhagwan as a party to the same. Civil Revision No. 6928 of 2011 --2-- Raj Kumar was claimed as a workman in the employment of the petitioners. The petitioners have, however, claimed that the contract of construction of shed was given to Jai Bhagwan and Raj Kumar was working under Jai Bhagwan and not under the petitioners. It is claimed by the petitioners that after completion of the work, the dues of Jai Bhagwan, contractor had been paid and Jai Bhagwan is consequently claimed to be a necessary party to the proceedings. The application was opposed by the claimants on the plea that there was no relationship of employer and employee between Raj Kumar and Jai Bhagwan. It is claimed that Raj Kumar was working under the petitioners and was getting Rs.5000/- per month as salary as also overtime dues. Hearing rival submissions, learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act,1923, Karnal has not agreed with the petitioners in their plea that Jai Bhagwan is a necessary party. Consequently, the application has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, M/s Shiv Shakti Rice Mills, Nissing and others have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 07.09.2010. I have heard Shri Vivek Sakhun, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Civil Revision No. 6928 of 2011 --3-- Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had given a contract for construction of shed to Jai Bhagwan and it is Jai Bhagwan, who had employed the deceased workman. According to him, there was no relationship between the petitioners and the deceased workman. He has submitted that in these circumstances where the dues of Jai Bhagwan had already been paid by the petitioners, Jai Bhagwan is the necessary party against whom the claim could be made. He has, therefore, submitted that Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Karnal has been wrong in rejecting the application. There is a writing dated 16.02.2009 executed by Jai Bhagwan, which is noticed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Karnal. This writing speaks of some contract taken by Jai Bhagwan from M/s Shiv Shakti Rice Mills, Nissing as also of receipt of full and final payment by Jai Bhagwan with regard to that contract. In this receipt, no details of the contract are spelled out. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners sought time to produce a copy of the contract between the petitioners and Jai Bhagwan in whose employment, the deceased workman is claimed to have been. Learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted today at the bar that there is no such contract. It is not possible for the petitioners to have given a contract to Jai Bhagwan of construction of shed without drawing up a contract laying down the terms of the same. Even if it is believed Civil Revision No. 6928 of 2011 --4-- that there was no such contract in writing between the petitioners and Jai Bhagwan, there would be enough of record with the petitioners to prove that Jai Bhagwan had been given such a contract and that Raj Kumar was not an employee with them. It is, however, open to the petitioners to prove before the Commissioner that Raj Kumar was not a workman under them. By proof of the said fact, they would be absolved of the liability. I do not find any reason why the petitioners are insisting on impleadment of Jai Bhagwan as a respondent in this case. Learned Commissioner has taken into account the aforesaid aspects and has rightly concluded that Jai Bhagwan is not a necessary party to the proceedings. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order justifying interference with the same. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 17.11.2011 dinesh