In Payyannur Educational Society Vs Narayani, [(1996) 3 Supp LLJ 1212] the Kerala High Court rejected the appellants

contention.
1. Two workmen while engaged in a land excavating operation, were buried alive under heaps of mud billowed on them in a landslide and the site became their grave instantaneously, Dependents of those who died in such a trice made claims for compensation from the owner of the land (appellant) and two others (respondents 2 and 3). The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (for short 'the Commissioner') found that it was the appellant who had employed them, and on that finding he directed the appellant to pay compensation amount to the dependents of those two victims. These appeals are in challenge of the common award passed by the Commissioner. 2. There is no dispute that at the time of the catastrophe the two workmen were engaged in excavation work on appellant's land. Appellant is a registered society called "Payyannur Educational Society". Appellant's contentions were that the two workmen were not employed by the society but they were recruited by the second respondent to whom the society sold soil at the rate of Rs. 15/- per Lorry load and that the mishap occurred during the operation undertaken by the second respondent who was permitted by the society to do the excavatory work and collect the soil. In other words, appellant's main case is that it was not the employer. 3. The Commissioner found that the victims were actually employed by the appellant-society and hence it was held liable to pay the compensation amount assessed in accordance with the table prescribed.

Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that as the soil was sold to the second respondent, appellant had lost any ownership thereof and hence he cannot be made liable. What was sold by the appellant was only the soil and not the land. As long as the soil was not separated and transported, it remained as part of the land. The work involved in transforming land into soil must necessarily have been done when the ownership and title of the land remained with the appellant. So the appellant cannot disclaim liability in that line either. When the legal position is understood thus, we are of the view that appellant is the employer vis-a- vis the victims, as per Section 12 of the Act.

Appellant is therefore liable to pay the compensation due under the Act to the claimants. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals.