Judgment:
R.P. Sethi, J.
1. Amar Singh son of Shar Singh, a workman employed by the petitioner for execution of the work of the respondent met with an accident and was awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 19152/- to be paid by the respondent-Executive Engineer. After the payment of the amount to the injured workman the petitioner-Executive Engineer filed an arbitration application No. 26/1977 for reference of disputes to the arbitrator for adjudicating the responsibility for payment of the compensation between the contractor and the department. The arbitrator vide his award dated 4.10.1986 held,
It is the responsibility of the Contractor to pay the compensation on account of the injury caused to his labourer. The amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court vide order dated 5.5.1976 is recoverable from the contractor ant] as such his claims arc rejected.
Aggricved by the award the petitioner-contractor filed this petition for setting aside the award on the ground of alleged mis-conduct of the arbitrator.
2. In the objections filed on behalf of the respondent Dept. the allegations of fact were denied.
It was submitted that the award passed by the arbitrator was factually correct and legally sound.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 16.4.1988:
1. Whether the arbitrator has misconducted in the proceedings. OPP
2. Relief. OPP
The learned Counsel for the parties did not lead any evidence.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. Mr. Sheikh learned Counsel appearing for the contractor has argued that the award is liable to be set aside on the ground of legal misconduct of the arbitrator elaborating his argument he has submitted that in view of the award of the Labour Court the petitioner-Contractor was not liable to compensate the respondent-Department It is urged that as the arbitrator has ignored the specific provision of law, the award is liable to be quashed. Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the workmens in bet compensation Act, herein after called 'the Act', imposes a liability upon the principal to pay the compensation to the workman irrespective of the fact that such workman was employed by a person employed by the principal for the purposes of execution of the contract of the principal. However sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Act provides that where the principal is liable to compensate under Sub-section (1) of Section 12, he is entitled to be indemnified by1 the contractor or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered the compensation. The provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act are intended to award compensation to the workman without any further delay which could not be avoided to be paid on the technical pleas of immediate liability. The principal contractor being vicariously liablehasbeenheldtobestatutorilyobligedtomakethepaymentirrespectiveoftheagcncy sought to be employed for the execution of the work. However that does not absolve the contractor to indemnify the principal who has compensated the injured workman under the social welfare legislation as incorporated under the Workmens Compensation Act. There does not appear to be any illegality attributable to the arbitrator which could be termed as legal mis-conduct as argued by Mr. Sheikh. The petitioner-contractor has failed to discharge the onus of proof of issue No. 1 which is accordingly decided against him.
6. The result is that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition deserves dismissal which is accordingly dismissed but under the circumstances of the case no order as to costs.