Kerala High Court
Lucy Joy vs R.Vasantha on 23 May, 2025
2025:KER:35655
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2025 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1947
MFA (ECC) NO. 33 OF 2024
APPELLANTS/ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5:
1 LUCY JOY
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O.LATE. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM, PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 505
2 JALIN
AGED 42 YEARS
PARAYARUTHOTTAM, PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM, KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,
POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 575
BY ADV PRINSUN PHILIP
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND OPPOSITE PARTIES 2, 3, 6 AND 7:
1 F.SUNDERRAJ
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. N. FRANCIS, PUNNAIKADU, KLANTTIVILAI,KATTATHURAI
P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT'PIN., PIN - 629 158
2 MANI
CHEMPAKATHINKAL,PARAPPALLI BHAGOM, KIZHAPARAYAR
KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 575
3 SAJI
VALAYATHIL, PARAPPALLI BHAGOM, KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,
POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 575
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
2
4 JIBIN
S/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM, PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA, EENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 575
5 JINU
D/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM, PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 575
BY ADV PUSHPAVATHI.K
THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2025,
ALONG WITH MFA (ECC).34/2024, 35/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2025 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1947
MFA (ECC) NO. 34 OF 2024
APPELLANTS/ADDITIONAL OPPOSITE PARTIES 4 AND 5:
1 LUCY JOY
AGED 66 YEARS
JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM,PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM, KIZHAPARAYAR
KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686 575
2 JALIN
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM,PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686 575
BY ADV PRINSUN PHILIP
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND OPPOSITE PARTIES 2, 3, 6 AND 7:
1 R.VASANTHA
W/O. NESAMONY @ MONY, PALMKALAYIL, PULLUVILAI,
MUALAKUMMOODU P.O., AZHAKIYAMANDAPAM, THAKKALA,
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT., PIN - 639 167
2 MANI
CHEMPAKATHINKAL,PARAPPALLI BHAGOM, KIZHAPARAYAR
KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686 575
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
4
3 SAJI
VALAYATHIL, PARAPPALLI BHAGOM, KIZHAPARAYAR
KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686 575
4 JIBIN
S/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM,PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
TALUKKOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 575
5 JINU
D/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM,PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 686 575
BY ADV PUSHPAVATHI.K
THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2025,
ALONG WITH MFA (ECC).33/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2025 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1947
MFA (ECC) NO. 35 OF 2024
APPELLANTS/ADDITIONAL OPPOSITE PARTIES 4 AND 5:
1 LUCY JOY
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM, PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575
2 JALIN
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM,PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRIC, PIN - 686575
BY ADV PRINSUN PHILIP
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND OPPOSITE PARTIES 2, 3, 6 AND 7:
1 M.PALANIVEL
S/O OF MUTHUSWAMY, AMABALAKARA STREET,
ATHAMADIPATTI,COMAPUARAMP.O., GANDHARVAKOTTAI VIA,
PUTHUKOTAI, TAMIL NADU., PIN - 613301
2 MANI
CHEMPAKATHINKAL,PARAPPALLI BHAGOM, KIZHAPARAYAR
KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686575
3 SAJI
VALAYATHIL, PARAPPALLI BHAGOM, KIZHAPARAYAR
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
6
KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 686575
4 JIBIN
S/O. JOY,PARAYARUTHOTTAM, PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 575
5 JINU
D/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM,PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE.MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 686 575
BY ADV PUSHPAVATHI.K
THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2025,
ALONG WITH MFA (ECC).33/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2025 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1947
MFA (ECC) NO. 40 OF 2024
APPELLANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES 5 AND 6:
1 LUCY JOY
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM, PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686 575
2 JALIN
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM,PARAPPALLI
BGHAGOM,KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 575
BY ADV PRINSUN PHILIP
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS AND OPPOSITE PARTIES 2, 3, 6 AND 7:
1 P. SANTHI
W/O LATE ARPUTHAM, 17/41/44 FATHIMA NAGAREAST
MOOLACHAL, THUCKALAY P.O., KALKULAM THALUK, KANYAKUMARI
DISTRICT., PIN - 629 175
2 A.SUMITHA
D/O LATE ARPUTHAM, 17/41/44' FATHIMA NAGAR, EAST
MOOLACHAL, THUCKALAY P.O., KALKULAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI
DISTRICT. PIN, PIN - 679 125
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
8
3 MANI
CHEMPAKATHINKAL,PARAPPALLI BHAGOM, KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,
POOVARANI VILLAGE,MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 575
4 SAJI
VALAYATHIL,PARAPPALLI BHAGOM, KIZHAPARAYAR KARA,
POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 575
5 JIBIN[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
S/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM, PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 575
6 JINU
D/O. JOY, PARAYARUTHOTTAM,PARAPPALLI BGHAGOM,
KIZHAPARAYAR KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISRICT, PIN - 686 575
BY ADV PUSHPAVATHI.K
THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2025,
ALONG WITH MFA (ECC).33/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
9
CR
JUDGMENT
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
1. These four appeals arise from four Applications for
compensation, which were disposed of by the Employees
Compensation Commissioner as per a common order. The
Opposite Parties Nos.4 & 5 are the appellants. An accident
occurred in a granite stone quarry situated in the property of
the 1st Opposite Party. Three persons died in an accident and
one person suffered injuries. The person who suffered injuries
filed E.C.C. No. 146/2014 and the legal heirs of the persons
who died in the accident filed E.C.C. No. 147/2014, 148/2014
and 149/2014.
2. The Applications were filed against three persons on the
allegation that those persons have been operating the quarry
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
as on the date of the accident which occurred at 8.45 A.M on
05.02.2009. The Opposite Parties Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed joint
Written Statement. During the pendency of the Applications,
the 1st Opposite Party died and the additional Opposite Parties
Nos. 4 to 7 were impleaded as the legal heirs of the 1st
Opposite Party. They filed additional Written Statement.
3. The Commissioner found that the injured and deceased
persons with respect to whom the compensation is claimed in
the Applications were the employees of the 1st Opposite Party.
Consequently, the Orders were passed granting compensation
in favour of the applicants, holding that the Opposite Parties
Nos.4 to 7, who are the legal heirs of the deceased 1st
Opposite Party, are liable to satisfy the award. These appeals
are filed by the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 and 5 challenging their
liability to pay the awarded amounts as per the orders passed
by the Employees Compensation Commissioner.
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Prinsun Philip
and the learned counsel for the respondents
Smt.Pushpavathi.K.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the
relevant time of the accident, the quarry was operated by the
Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 as per Ext. R1 and R2 Lease
Agreements executed by the 1st Opposite Party in favour of
them. The evidence before the Commissioner clearly proved
that the quarry was in the possession and control of the
Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 at the time of accident. There
was no employer-employee relationship between the 1 st
Opposite Party and the deceased and injured persons. Hence
the Commissioner ought to have ordered the Opposite Parties
Nos.2 and 3 to pay the amounts awarded in the impugned
orders. The learned Counsel further contended that the
specific allegation in the Applications is that the quarry had
been operated by the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3. There is no
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
reason for exonerating the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 from
the liability. Exts. R3 and R4 would prove that the Opposite
Parties Nos. 2 and 3 also had been conducting the quarry,
along with the 1st Opposite Party since they are also accused
in S.C. No. 257/2011 and 267/2011, in which the 1 st Opposite
Party is an accused.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting
respondents argued that the additional Opposite Parties who
were impleaded consequent to the death of the 1 st Opposite
Party filed an additional Written Statement contradictory to the
stand taken by the original 1st Opposite Party. The 1st
Opposite Party along with Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 filed
Written Statement specifically stating that the quarry had been
conducted by one Nesamony who was the deceased in E.C.C.
No. 148/2014 and that the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 were
operating lorries from and to the quarry and that they had no
direct or indirect connection with the quarry. The 1 st Opposite
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
Party had no contention that the quarry was leased to
Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3. The additional Opposite Parties
Nos.4 to 7 who were impleaded as the legal heirs of the 1 st
Opposite Party have no right to advance a contention that is
not taken by the original 1st Opposite Party.
7. I have considered the rival contentions.
8. The dispute in this appeal is only with respect to the employer
employee relationship of the 1st Opposite Party. The
Applications were filed contending that the deceased and the
injured persons were the employees of the Opposite Parties
Nos.1 to 3 as on the date of accident. The quarry is admittedly
situated in the property belonging to the 1st Opposite Party.
The 1st Opposite Party filed Written Statement along with the
Opposite Parties Nos 2 and 3. It was the common case of the
Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 that the whole mining operation in
the property was entrusted with one Nesamony, who
employed the other deceased and injured persons. The said
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
Nesamony also died in the accident. The specific case
pleaded in the written statement is that the Opposite Parties
Nos.2 and 3 were operating lorries from and to the quarry, and
that they have no direct or indirect connection with the workers
working in the quarry. The lorry numbers of the Opposite
Parties Nos.2 and 3 are also stated in the Written Statement.
The 1st Opposite Party did not have a case that the quarry
belonged to him was leased to the Opposite Parties Nos 2 and
3. In order to prove the entrustment of the quarry with
Nesamony, no evidence was adduced before the
Commissioner. Subsequently, when the Opposite Parties
Nos. 4 to 7 were impleaded consequent to the death of the 1st
Opposite Party as his legal heirs, they filed Written Statement
taking a stand that the quarry belonged to the 1st Opposite
Party was leased to the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 as per
Ext.R1 and R2 Lease agreements. The 5th Opposite Party
was examined as RW1 to prove the said fact. The claim of the
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
applicants is against Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3. Apart from
their status as the legal heirs of the 1st Opposite Party, the
Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 have no interest in the
proceedings. Hence, they cannot disown the statement made
by the 1st Opposite Party in his Written Statement and take a
stand contrary to the stand taken by him. In the Written
Statement filed by the 1st Opposite Party, he has no case that
the quarry was leased to the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3.
On the other hand, the specific case is that they have no direct
or indirect connection with the workers of the quarry. The legal
heirs step into the shoes of the deceased party to the
proceedings, when they are impleaded consequent to the
death of the deceased party. Legal Heirs are bound by the
pleadings of the deceased party. They cannot withdraw from
the pleadings of the deceased party. Hence, the subsequent
pleading of the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 in their Written
Statement which is directly opposite to the pleadings of the 1 st
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
Opposite Party, could not be accepted. When such pleading of
the Opposite Parties Nos 4 to 7 are ignored Exts. R1 to R4
documents produced by the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 are
beyond the scope of pleadings. Only if the 1st Opposite Party
had a case that the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 had taken
lease of the quarry, the said documents could be looked into.
The strict rules of pleadings and evidence are not applicable to
matters coming under labour welfare legislation. Even then, if
the evidence is diametrically opposite to the pleadings it could
not be relied on. Hence Exts. R1 to R4 documents produced
by the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 could not be considered for
deciding the dispute. Hence, the Commissioner was right in
holding that the deceased and injured persons with respect to
whom compensation is claimed in the Applications are the
employees of the 1st Opposite Party.
9. The next question is whether the Commissioner was right in
exonerating the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 from the
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
liability. Here also, when we go through the joint Written
Statement filed by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3, it is stated
that the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 have no direct or
indirect connection with the workers working in the quarry.
The specific statement is that they are the drivers of the lorries
which were operating from and to the quarry. In view of the
said contention taken by the 1st Opposite Party, the additional
Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 cannot take a different stand and
contend that the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 have also
connection with the quarry and the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and
3 are also liable to pay the compensation along with the
Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the Employees
Compensation Commissioner has rightly found that there is
employer - employee relationship between the deceased
persons and the injured persons with the 1 st Opposite Party
and awarded compensation ordering the Opposite Parties
2025:KER:35655
[MFA (ECC) Nos.33/2024, 34/2024, 35/2024, 40/2024]
Nos. 4 to 7 to pay the same as the legal heirs of the deceased
1st Opposite Party. No substantial question of law arises in
these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed
without costs.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
mus
