C. Pratheep Kumar JUDGMENT
C. Pratheep Kumar, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act by the applicants in E.C.C. No.109/2014 (WCC No. 30/2009 on the file of the Employees Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal), Idukki against the order dated 24.11.2015. The appellants are the dependents of one Babu @ Michle who was an electrician by profession who died as a result of electrocution in the incident that occurred on 21.9.2006. Late Babu used to provide light and sound for small programmes in and around Elappara. On 21.9.2006 the respondents engaged him for some programme of SNDP Yogam, Kozhikkanam Branch. Respondents 1 and 2 were the office bearers of SNDP Yogam. While Babu was throwing the cable for connecting the mike set, across the telephone post, the cable came in contact with the 11 KV electric line and as a result of which, he got electrocuted and succumbed to the injuries. The Employees Compensation Commissioner dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased was a contractor and not a workman. Aggrieved by the above order, they have preferred this appeal raising various grounds.
2. According to the appellants, the finding of the Commissioner that Babu was not an employee coming under Section 2(1) (dd) of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, Act 8 of 1923) is not correct. He cannot be treated as a contractor. At the most, he can be considered as a petty contractor. Even then, the appellants are entitled to get compensation from the respondents. According to them, Act 8 of 1923 being a social security and welfare legislation, it should not be interpreted narrowly to deny compensation to the employee. Therefore, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner and to allow the claim petition.
3. At the time of argument, the respondents did not turn up. The point that arise for consideration is the following :
Whether a person engaged in hiring mike set for rent is an employee coming within the purview of Section 2(1) (dd) of the Employees Compensation Act 1923?
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
5. Deceased Babu was an electrician and a mike operator. On 21.9.2006, while he was drawing electric line for providing mike set to the respondents 1 and 2 for some programme of SNDP Yogam, the cable came into contact with an electric line and he got electrocuted. The Employees Compensation Commissioner found that Babu was an independent contractor and not an employee of the respondents. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that, at the most, he can be styled as a petty contractor and even then the respondents are liable to pay compensation as he died during the course of his employment.
6. In order to substantiate the above argument the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kunjoonjamma Daniel v. KSEB [MANU/KE/0630/2001 : 2001 KHC ........