IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.07.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.No.307 of 2002 Thakur Bherwani Partner M/s.Neetha Exports No.49, Casa Major Road Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. ... Appellant Vs. 1) T.N.A.Krishnan 2) K.P.M.Lakshmi ... Respondents This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to set aside the order of computation dated 08.06.2001 made in W.C.No.169/1999 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Chennai - 600 006 and dismiss the said W.C.No.169/1999 with costs. For Appellant : Mr.P.K.Gopalraj Mr.N.Gyanchand Jain For Respondent : Mr.S.Ilamparithi J U D G M E N T
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Chennai – 600 006 dated 08.06.2001 made in W.C.No.169/1999 directing the respondent therein/appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,97,060/- as compensation to the respondents herein for the death of their son T.A.Parameswaran on 17.07.1997 allegedly in an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment under the appellant herein.
2. The respondents herein being the parents of deceased Parameswaran had preferred a claim on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Chennai making the following allegations:-
i) T.A.Parameswaran had applied for the post of Security Guard in M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia pursuant to an advertisement made by the appellant herein/opposite party on 05.05.1994. Thereafter the appellant/opposite party called him for an interview at their office at No.14, Prince Plaza, 2nd Floor, 46 Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. The interview was conducted on 03.06.1994 and thereafter the appellant/opposite party sent a letter of appointment appointing the said Parameswaran to the post of Security Guard for M/s. P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia. The appointment letter was given by the appellant/opposite party on the following conditions:-
a) that the appointment was equivalent of Rs.5,000/- per month with an annual increment of Rs.1,000/-;
b) that out of the said amount Rs.5,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,000/- will be deposited in a joint savings bank account to be opened in the joint names of T.A.Parameswaran and Mr.Thakur Bherwani, the Managing Director of the opposite party;
and
c) that Mr.T.A.Parameswaran should stay at Indonesia at least for three years.
ii) Based on the above said appointment order, Parameswaran left for Indonesia on 05.06.1994 and reported for duty before Mr.Johny M.Kalwani, the Director of M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa on the same day, on his arrival in Indonesia, he was asked to enter into a service agreement as per the terms of which his monthly pay was initially fixed at Rs.6,000/- with a special bonus of Rs.1,000/-. After completing his training period successfully, he was regularised in the month of September 1994. Thereafter he was promoted as General Supervisor on 12.05.2004. In terms of the conditions of the appointment order, the said amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was deducted from his salary and deposited in the joint savings bank account till the death of Parameswaran. On 17.07.1997 the said Parameswaran met with a factory accident at Jakarta and was admitted at RSU Bina Husad-A-Hospital and died on the same day. The said fact was informed by the appellant/ opposite party to the respondents/applicants on 21.07.1997.
3. Contending that the appellant/opposite party was the employer of the deceased Parameswaran and that the appellant also acted as an agent of M/s. P.T.Raspari Granitonusa, Jakarta Utara, Indonesia and that hence the appellant/opposite party was liable to pay compensation to the respondents/applicants for the death of Parameswaran under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the respondents had prayed for an order directing the appellant/opposite party to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents/applicants.
4. The appellant/opposite party resisted the claim by filing a counter statement denying the employer-employee relationship between the appellant/opposite party and the deceased Parameswaran and the liability of the appellant to pay any amount as compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It was contended further in the counter statement that one of their foreign buyers M/s. P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia wanted to recruit staff for their factory and requested the appellant/opposite party to take preliminary steps informing that the final selection of the staff would be made by their representative; that accordingly T.A.Parameswaran son of the respondents/ applicants was provisionally selected by the appellant/ opposite party on behalf of the above said foreign buyer; that the final selection was made by the said foreign company and that they only arranged Visa for the said Parameswaran. It was also contended that the allegation of holding a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month would be deposited in joint savings bank account opened in the name of Parameswaran and Mr.Thakur Bherwani was not true; that whatever be the terms of employment they were between the above said foreign company and Parameswaran, the son of respondents/ applicants and that the appellant/opposite party was not at all a necessary party to a claim of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Based on their plea that there was no jural relationship of employer and employee between the appellant/opposite party and the deceased Parameswaran they disowned their liability and pleaded for the dismissal of the claim application made against the appellant.
5. In the enquiry conducted by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-I, Chennai, the first respondent herein/first applicant was examined as the sole witness (A.W.1) and as many as 10 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 on the side of the respondents herein/applicants. One witness was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 on the side of the appellant/opposite party. At the conclusion of enquiry, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation – I, Chennai held that the deceased Parameswaran was employed by the foreign company by name M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia, which had business connection with the appellant/opposite party and that the said Parameswaran was employed by the said foreign company through the appellant/opposite party and hence the appellant/opposite part was liable to pay compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to the respondents/applicants who are the parents of the above said deceased Parameswaran. Holding that the said Parameswaran was drawing a salary of Rs.7,000/- per month, but restricting the same to Rs.2,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and taking the age of the deceased at the time of his death to be 35 years, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-I, Chennai awarded a sum of Rs.1,97,060/- as compensation to which the respondents/applicants were entitled. The Commissioner also directed the appellant/opposite party to pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of his order and directed further that in case of failure to make such a deposit within 30 days, the said amount should be paid with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim application till deposit.
6. Aggrieved by and challenging the said order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-I, Chennai, the appellant/opposite party has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Appeal.
7. An appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarding compensation would lie to the High Court under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 on a substantial question of law. In this case, the respondents/applicants had made a claim before the Commissioner on the strength of their pleading that the appellant/ opposite party was the employer of the deceased Parameswaran and that though the said Parameswaran was working under M/s. P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia, the appellant/ opposite party was liable to pay compensation, as the appellant was the representative of the said foreign company. The jural relationship of “employer and employee” between the appellant and the deceased Parameswaran alleged by the respondents/applicants in the application has been stoutly denied by the appellant/ opposite party.
8. In the light of such allegation and counter application, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation seems to have arrived at a conclusion that the appellant/opposite party was liable to pay compensation because the deceased Parameswaran was employed in a foreign company which did have business connection with the appellant/opposite party and the appointment to the said foreign company was made through the appellant/opposite party. While directing the appellant to pay compensation, the Commissioner has also observed that after making payment to the respondents/applicants, the appellant/opposite party could claim reimbursement from the above said foreign company, namely M/s. P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia.
9. It is the specific contention of the appellant/opposite party that the appellant/opposite party was neither a principal employer nor an immediate employer and that hence there is no obligation on the part of the appellant to pay compensation for the death of the deceased Parameswaran. It is the further contention of the appellant that the deceased Parameswaran was employed not in India but in Indonesia; that the accident itself took place in Indonesia; that at the time of accident he was employed by the foreign company by name M/s. P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia and that hence the appellant/opposite party cannot be mulcted with any liability for making payment of compensation to the parents of the said deceased Parameswaran. It is the further contention of the appellant that the extra territorial application of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 by virtue of Section 15-B is restricted to the workmen recruited by the companies in India and working as such abroad and that the same cannot be extended to the workmen recruited for and working abroad in companies not registered in India. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that even in respect of persons working abroad in companies not registered in India, the claims can be made against Indian representatives of such companies.
10. Under such circumstances, the following substantial questions have arisen for determination in this appeal:-
1) Whether the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 are applicable to persons working abroad in companies not registered in India simply because such companies do have their representatives in India?
2) Whether an agent in India of a foreign company not registered in India can be held liable to pay compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for an injury or death caused to a person working abroad in such a foreign company in an accident that takes place outside the territory of India?
11. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.P.K.Gopalraj, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Ilamparithi, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants and also perused the materials available on record.
12. The following are the admitted facts:-
M/s.Neetha Exports is a partnership firm of which Mr.Thakur Bherwani is a partner. The said partnership firm is having its administrative office at No.14, Prince Plaza, 2nd Floor, 46 Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa is a foreign company having its establishments at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia. Parameswaran son of the respondents herein/applicants was employed in the said foreign company in one of its establishments at Jakarta, Indonesia, initially as a Security Guard, with an initial pay of Rs.6,000/- per month with a special bonus of Rs.1,000/- per month and an annual increment of not less than Rs.1,000/-. The said Parameswaran joined the services of the above said M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at Jakarta Utara, Indonesia on 05.06.1994 after entering into a service agreement with the said company on the above said date. While he was thus serving in one of the establishments of the above said company at Jakarta, Indonesia, he met with a factory accident on 17.07.1997 and died on the same day after brief treatment in the hospital. A copy of the Postmortem certificate and a copy of the Accident Report marked as Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 respectively and a copy of the certificate of entry of death in the records of Embassy of India, Jakarta (Indonesia) marked as Ex.A6 reveal the fact that the said Parameswaran met with a factory accident while functioning as an employee of the above said M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa at its factory at TANJUNG UDI, KEC. GUNUNG PUTRI, KAB. BOGOR, as a heavy stone of about one ton weight fell on him and that he succumbed to the injuries after a brief treatment in RSU Bina Husad-A-Hospital. The fact of the said accident and the death of Parameswaran was informed to the respondents/applicants through the appellant/opposite party and it was the appellant/opposite party who helped the respondents/ applicants to bring the dead body of Parameswaran to Chennai.
13. According to the contentions raised by the respondents/applicants, the said Parameswaran was selected by the appellant/opposite party after conducting an interview at its administrative office and an appointment order was issued by the appellant/opposite party pursuant to which the said Parameswaran went to Indonesia to work under M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa. A copy of the appointment letter allegedly issued by the appellant/opposite party has been produced and marked as Ex.A1. Solely relying on the said appointment letter, the respondents/applicants have claimed compensation against the appellant/opposite party as if the appellant/opposite party was the principal employer of the said Parameswaran whose services had been lent to the foreign company – M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that except the fact that the appellant/opposite party lent their services for selecting appropriate personnel for being recruited by M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa for its establishments in Indonesia, there was no other connection between the appellant and the said foreign company concerning the services of Parameswaran; that after having been selected and sent to Indonesia, the said Parameswaran entered into a service contract with the above said foreign company; that thereafter he was fully under the control of the said foreign company and was working in the establishments of the said foreign company in Indonesia and that if at all the respondents/applicants are entitled to claim any compensation for the death of Parameswaran, they should have made such a claim against the said foreign company alone, not in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, but in accordance with the laws applicable to factory accidents in Indonesia. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party that the appellant/opposite party was neither a principal employer nor an immediate employer of the said Parameswaran and that hence the claim made against the appellant/opposite party should have been dismissed as not maintainable.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/ applicants would contend that Ex.A1 appointment order would make it clear that Parameswaran was recruited by the appellant/opposite party and was sent to Indonesia to work under M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa and that hence the appellant/opposite party has been rightly held liable to pay compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by virtue of Section 15-B of the said act. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants that though M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa is a foreign company and a separate entity than the appellant/partnership firm registered in India, both are sister concerns and hence the order of the Commissioner mulcting the liability on the appellant is perfectly valid. The learned counsel for the respondents/applicants would contend further that in any event since the appellant/opposite party acted as the representative of foreign company viz. M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa, the order of the Commissioner holding the appellant/opposite party liable to pay compensation for the death of Parameswaran cannot be held erroneous.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant, enumerating the conflicts found between the terms of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the service agreement between Parameswaran and M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa and pointing out the fact that the said appointment letter was not signed by Thakur Bherwani or any other partner and that it was signed by another person “for Thakur Bherwani”, would contend that the said appointment letter was not a true and genuine one. However, after going through the evidence in this regard, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has chosen to give a finding that Ex.A1 appointment letter was issued by the appellant/opposite party. The said finding is nothing but a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act unless such a finding is proved to be perverse. This court, after going through the evidence in this regard, is not in a position to come to the conclusion that the said finding can be termed perverse. Therefore, no interference can be made with the finding recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-I, Chennai that Ex.A1 letter of appointment was issued by the appellant/opposite party.
17. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that though the finding regarding genuineness of Ex.A1 appointment letter could not be canvassed in this appeal, yet the appellant could demonstrate that the deceased Parameswaran was not an employee of the appellant at any point of time and that the recruitment itself was made for M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa alone. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the fact that the said appointment letter itself contains a recital to the effect that he was appointed for M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa for their establishments at Jakarta, Indonesia. There is some force and substance in the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In Ex.A1 the subject is described as “appointment as Security Guard for M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa for their establishments at Jakarta, Indonesia”. The same will show that the said Parameswaran was appointed not as an employee of the appellant/opposite party but as an employee of M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa, Jakarta, Indonesia. Paragraph 5 of the appointment letter also lends support to such a conclusion. It reads as follows:
” This appointment is in any event subject to issue of necessary Visas, renewals/extensions thereof, and the rules of Indonesian Government in respect of the foreign employees in force from time to time.”
18. To make it clear that after selecting and sending Parameswaran to Indonesia, the appellant/opposite party do not have anything to do with the service conditions of Parameswaran, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the copy of the service agreement entered into between M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa and Parameswaran marked as Ex.A2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, pointing out Clause 1(b) in the appointment letter, would contend that the same was enough to hold that there was a contract of service between the appellant and the first respondent that the appellant was acting as an agent/representative of the above said Indonesian company – M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa. Of-course as per the said clause 1(b), out of the salary of the deceased Parameswaran, a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month was directed to be deposited in the joint savings bank account to be opened in the names of Parameswaran and Thakur Bherwani, a partner in Neetha Exports, as a security. A close scrutiny of the said clause would show that the said amount was sought to be held in the joint account as a security for his continuing in the service of M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa and that the entire amount with accrued interest had to be paid to the said Parameswaran or his nominee after the completion of one year satisfactory service. Admittedly, the above said Parameswaran was in the continuous service of M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa from 05.06.1994 till his death on 17.07.1997, that is for more than three years. From Ex.A3, it is also clear that due to the satisfactory performance, Parameswaran was promoted as General Supervisor in May 1995. Even though there was such a clause in Ex.A1, there is no record to show any amount was deducted from the salary of Parameswaran in accordance with the said clause and sent to the appellant/opposite party. Neither the name of the bank nor the account number has been produced. Moreover, since the said condition was to be in force only for a period of one year, the fact that the deceased Parameswaran was serving under M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa for more than three years would give rise to an inference that, if at all any such amount was kept in the joint savings bank account, the same would have been released at the end of his first year service. Therefore, on the mere fact that there was such a clause in Ex.A1 to keep certain amount in the joint deposit as security for the deceased Parameswaran continuing in service at least for a period of one year, would not have made the appellant either his principal employer or an immediate employer. It is not the case of the respondents/ applicants that the deceased Parameswaran was recruited by the appellant concern for itself and was sent abroad to work in Jakarta. It is also not the case of the respondents/applicants that the deceased Parameswaran was an employee of the appellant concern and his services were lent temporarily to the foreign company. On the other hand, it is a fact admitted by both parties that he was recruited for the foreign company, namely M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa.
19. Admittedly, the accident took place in Indonesia, outside the territorial jurisdiction of India. Generally, as per Section 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the act shall extend to the whole of India, meaning that it provisions shall apply to all the cases of employment injuries leading to disablement or death which occurs within the territory of India. However, Section 15-B gives certain extra territorial application to the provisions of the act. Such extra territorial application for employment injuries caused to workmen outside the territory of India is prescribed only in respect of two cases, (1) in the case of workmen who are persons recruited by companies registered in India and working as such abroad and (2) persons sent for work abroad along with motor vehicles registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) as drivers, helpers, mechanics, cleaners or other workmen, subject to certain modifications. For the purpose of better appreciation, section 15-B is reproduced here under:-
15-B. Special Provisions relating to workmen abroad of companies and motor vehicles. – This Act shall apply –
(i) in the case of workmen who are persons recruited by companies registered in India and working as such abroad, and
(ii) persons sent for work abroad along with motor vehicles registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) as drivers, helpers, mechanics, cleaners or other workmen, subject to the following modifications, namely:-
(1) The notice of the accident and the claim for compensation may be served on the local agent of the company, or the local agent of the owner of the motor vehicle, in the country of accident, as the case may be.
(2) In the case of death of the workman in respect of whom the provisions of this section shall apply, the claim for compensation shall be made within one year after the news of the death has been received by the claimant:
Provided that the Commissioner may entertain any claim for compensation in any case notwithstanding that the claim has not been preferred in due time as provided in this sub-section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to prefer the claim was due to sufficient cause.
(3) Where an injured workman is discharged or left behind in any part of India or in any other country any depositions taken by any Judge or Magistrate in that part or any Consular Officer in the foreign country and transmitted by the person by whom they are taken to the Central Government or any State Government shall, in any proceedings for enforcing the claims, be admissible in evidence –
(a) if the deposition is authenticated by the signature of the Judge, Magistrate or Consular Officer before whom it is made;
(b) if the defendant or the person accused, as the case may be, had an opportunity by himself or his agent to cross-examine the witness;
(c) if the deposition was made in the course of a criminal proceeding on proof that the deposition was made in the presence of the person accused.
And it shall not be necessary in any case to prove the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed any such deposition and a certificate by such person that the defendant or the person accused had an opportunity of cross-examining the witness and that the deposition if made in a criminal proceeding was made in the presence of the person accused shall, unless the contrary is proved, be sufficient evidence that he had that opportunity and that it was so made”.
20. As per Section 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the said Act extends to the whole of India. The normal construction of the domestic statutes will be that the same shall be applicable within the territory of the country and shall have no extra territorial application in the absence of any specific provision regarding its extra territorial application. The general rule is restriction of application of domestic statutes to the territory of the country. The special provisions regarding extra territorial applicability of the provisions of the statute is only an exception. Such exceptions are to be strictly construed and applied only to cases which come within the four corners of the provision providing extra territorial application of the statute. Likewise Section 15-B of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is an exception to the general clause regarding the application of the Workmen’s Compensation Act within the territory of India. Section 15-B deals with two kinds of persons who are brought under the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, even though they happen to work abroad at the time of sustaining injury or suffering death. The first type of persons covered by Clause 1 of Section 15-B are “persons recruited by the companies registered in India and working as such abroad” and the second type of persons regarding whom the exception provided are “those who had been sent for work for abroad along with motor vehicles registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as drivers, helpers, mechanics, cleaners or other workmen”. In both the cases, the following conditions also should be fulfilled:-
1) Notice of accident and the claim for compensation should have been served on the local agent of the company in the country of accident or the local owner of the motorcycle in the country of accident.
2) In case of death, the claim for compensation should have been made within one year after the news of death has been received by the claimants. There is also a proviso for entertaining the application for compensation after expiry of the said period of one year if sufficient cause is shown.
21. The deceased Parameswaran does not fall under any one of the two categories of persons mentioned above. Though it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the deceased Parameswaran was recruited by the appellant/opposite party, admittedly he was not working as such abroad. In Indonesia, he was not working as an employee of the appellant/opposite party. On the other hand, admittedly, the deceased Parameswaran was employed under M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa, a company not registered in India. The accident took place not in India but in Indonesia. The deceased Parameswaran had entered into a service agreement with his foreign employer M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa. The appellant/ opposite party did not have any power of control or supervision over the work of the deceased Parameswaran. It is not even the case of the respondents/ applicants that he was recruited as an employee of the appellant/opposite party and his services were lent to the above said foreign company reserving a right to recall him at any point of time. As pointed out supra, the recruitment itself was made for M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa. In fact wage revisions were made and promotion was given to the deceased Parameswaran by the said foreign company out of its own accord. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased Parameswaran was recruited by the appellant/opposite party and was working as such abroad at the time of accident.
22. On the other hand, it is very much obvious that he was working directly as an employee of the foreign company in its factory in Indonesia. Clause (ii) of Section 15-B does not have any application to the deceased since he was not a person sent for work abroad along with motor vehicles registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-I, Chennai, has chosen to mulct the liability on the appellant/opposite party on the ground that the appellant/opposite party acted as an agent/ representative of the above said Indonesian company, in which the deceased Parameswaran was employed. There is no concrete evidence to prove that the appellant/opposite party acted as an agent or representative of the foreign company, except the fact that the appellant extended its service to the above said foreign company for selecting the personnel for M/s.P.T.Raspari Granitonusa to be employed in its factories in Indonesia.
23. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that even though the workmen would have been employed in a foreign country under a foreign employer, if such foreign employer does have a representative in India, such representative can be held responsible to pay compensation for the injury/death caused to such workmen abroad provided notice of such accident and the claim of compensation is served on the agent/representative in India. This court, is not in a position to accept such a contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 15-B deals with an accident caused to a workman working abroad if such a workman was recruited by a company registered in India and was working as such abroad. Only in such cases the claim for compensation are allowed to be made in India against the Indian company, which is the employer of such workman and even in cases wherein the workman employed abroad is admitted to be the workman of an Indian company, claim for compensation can be made only if notice of the accident and notice of such claim is served on a local representative/agent of such company in the country of accident. On the other hand, the proposition made by the learned counsel for the respondent is the reverse of what is contemplated in Section 15-B of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Hence the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent deserves to be rejected as untenable. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation – I, Chennai seems to have misapplied the said provision of law to extend the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 to an accident that took place in Indonesia while the deceased was working as an employee of a foreign company. Hence this court comes to the conclusion that the Commissioner has committed an error in applying the statutory provision to the facts of the case and held that the appellant/opposite party was liable to pay compensation to the respondents/applicants. Therefore, both the substantial question of law framed in this case have got to be answered in favour of the appellant/opposite party and against the respondents/ applicants. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-I, Chennai – 600 006 directing the appellant/opposite party to pay compensation to the respondents/applicants is liable to be set aside, as it is based on an erroneous decision on a substantial question of law.
24. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.307 of 2002 is allowed and the order of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-I, Chennai – 600 006 dated 08.06.2001 made in W.C.No.169/1999 is set aside. The
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.
asr/
claim of the respondents/applicants for compensation shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to the costs.
04.07.2008
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
asr/
To
The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-I,
Chennai – 600 006
C.M.A.No.307/2002