DECISION This appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner dismissing the claim.
2. The husband of the appellant was a Carpenter. He was said to have been employed by the respondent through Contractor Bawla for construction of a building in which the factory was to be installed. The deceased while working there sustained an injury as a result of which he died. The'appellant filed a claim before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act.
3. The claim was resisted by the respondent, lt was pleaded that the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, that the deceased was never employed by them and he had not met with an accident during the course of the business of the respondent and that the construction was not the trade or business of the respondent 4. The learned Commissioner, after framing the issues, recorded the evidence. On the assessment of the evidence he came to the conclusion that the deceased was not in the employment of the respondent but he was engaged by Bawla to whom the contract for the construction of the building was given. The factory had not yet started working and no manufacturing process was carried out in the premises. The deceased had met with an accident during the work of shuttering. On the basis of these findings he caine to the conclusion that the deceased was not in the employment of the respondent but in the employment of Bawla, Contractor and the injury sustained by the deceased was sustained in the course of business of Bawla. On this view he dismissed the claim.
5. Aggrieved by this the present appeal has been filed. From the statement of fact it is plain enough that no question of law is involved but the case depends upon the determination of question of fact and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. The learned counsel, however, attempted to rely upon section l2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act but this does not help him. Section l2 says that where any person in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person for thei execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any workU which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal} shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation. According to this section it is a condition precedent that the work for which a contract has been given must be the part of the trade or business of the principal. The construction of the factory itself is not part of trade or business of the respondent. The building was intended for the installation of the factory which had not yet been installed and no manufacturing process was carried out. Thus it is a case of merely labour contract. Consequently only the contractor was liable and not the respondent. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of the Punjab Religious Book Society v. Mst. Amna (1) but even this is of no avail as in that case there was no evidence to show that the deceased person was employed by the Contractor. It was on that account that it was held that the petitioner was liable. In the present case not only there is finding of the Commissioner but there is also evidence to show that the deceased was employed by Bawla to whom the work of construction was given by the respondent.
6. In the result the appeal is dismissed. (1) 1974 SCMR 269