Madras High Court
Shanmugam vs S.T.P.Parthiban on 17 December, 2021
C.M.A.(MD) No.66 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.66 of 2010
Shanmugam ... Appellant
-vs-
S.T.P.Parthiban ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, to set aside the order dated 23.11.2007 in
W.C.No.47 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the
claimant contending that the Authority under the Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923, has erroneously rejected the claim of compensation in W.C.No.47 of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.66 of 2010
2006 on 23.11.2007 holding that there was no employer – employee
relationship between him and the respondent herein.
2. According to the pleadings of the claimant, he was employed
under the respondent for four years and was drawing a sum of Rs.76/- per
day. It was stated on 11.07.2002, around 08.00 a.m., he had a fall from the
tree, by which his spinal cord got injured, which affected the kidney and
immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Kottayam, wherein
scan was taken and he he was admitted as inpatient in the Hospital. The
Doctor, who gave treatment to the claimant, found that there was a fracture in
the backbone and that since the claimant's health got deteriorated, he was
shifted to Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital on 13.08.2002, wherein a
surgery was conducted and plate was inserted. He would further submit that
the Union representatives negotiated and the employer paid a sum of Rs.
35,000/- and obtained signature for Rs.65,000/-; that the Doctor, who gave
treatment to the claimant, assessed the disability at 80% and that he is
entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
3. The respondent contended that the claimant was not at all the
employee under him and no accident as alleged by the claimant had taken
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.66 of 2010
place. He further submitted that the Workmen's Compensation Act will not be
applicable to the claimant and the contention that sum of Rs.76/- was paid
per day is incorrect and there is no need to pay a portion of amount and
obtain signature for different amount and hence, the claim is got to be
rejected.
4. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and
four documents were marked and on the side of the respondent, one witness
was examined and four documents, namely, Attendance Register for the
period from June, 2002 to March, 2003; Salary Register for the period from
June, 2000 to March, 2001; Salary Slips for the period from June, 2002 to
March, 2003 and Attendance Register for the period from June, 2000 to
March, 2001 were marked as Exs.R1 to R4 respectively.
5. The Authority, after taking note of the fact that there is no
evidence to witness the accident and there is no proof with regard to the
employment under the respondent, disbelieved the factum of accident and
rejected the claim of the accident. The claimant has not able to dislodge the
documentary evidence extracted supra and the Authority has rightly
disbelieved the case of the claimant.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.66 of 2010
6. Since the Authority has rendered a finding of fact and held that
there was no employer – employee relationship, the question of fact cannot be
agitated again. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
appeal preferred by the claimant is devoid of merits and liable to be rejected.
7. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
17.12.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the
Judgment may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate / litigant concerned.
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.66 of 2010
To:
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.66 of 2010
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
krk
C.M.A.(MD) No.66 of 2010
17.12.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
