M/S.Annai & Co vs Raichale
2021 Latest Caselaw 3879 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3879 Mad
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2021

Madras High Court

M/S.Annai & Co vs Raichale on 16 February, 2021

                                                                            C.M.A.No.2576 of 2013


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  Dated: 16.02.2021

                                                         CORAM:

                                    THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI


                                               C.M.A.No.2576 of 2013
                                                       and
                                                  M.P.No.1 of 2013

                   M/s.Annai & Co.,
                   14/23, Battachari Street,
                   Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023.                                  .. Appellant

                                                          Vs.

                   Raichale                                                     .. Respondent


                   PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
                   Workmen Compensation Act, praying to set aside the order passed in
                   W.C.No.563 of 2005 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I,
                   Workmen Compensation, Teynampet, Chennai -600 006 dated 30.07.2007.


                                         For Appellant     : Mr.I.Abrar MD Abdullah

                                         For Respondent    : Mr.U.Chidambaram
                                                             for Mr.Varadha Kamaraj




                   Page No.1


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                              C.M.A.No.2576 of 2013


                                                   JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the respondent in W.C.No.563 of 2005,

filed by this respondent / petitioner, claiming compensation for the fatal death

of her brother Gopalakrishnan who died due to the accident happened on

20.04.2005, during the course of employment as a load man under the

appellant for a monthly wage.

2. After full trial, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Workmen

Compensation, Teynampet, Chennai, awarded compensation by allowing the

said petition. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant preferred this appeal. At

the time of argument, there was no representation on the side of the

appellant/respondent therein. But the counsel for the respondent/petitioner

therein appeared all the hearings.

3. As per the contention of the respondent that the deceased

Gopalakrishnan was working as load man for the past 11 years for a monthly

wage of Rs.4,500/- per month with daily batta. While so, on 20.04.2005 at

12.30 onwards while he was unloading the bamboo sticks from the van in the

Page No.2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2576 of 2013

Hayist lift was capsized at the 9th floor and the cement concrete stones fell

down on the head of the deceased, resulting he sustained grievous injuries

and died on 25.04.2005, inspite of the treatment. At the time, he was aged

about 45 years and unmarried, he was under the care of the respondent /

petitioner therein who is a sister of the deceased, so she claimed

compensation from the appellant / respondent who was the employer of the

deceased at the time of the said accident. Immediately, after the accident, FIR

was lodged but the appellant denied the employer and employee relationship

between himself and the deceased, and also denied that the respondent is not

the sister of the deceased.

4. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, the sister of the

deceased was examined as P.W.1 and the documents which were marked as

Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and on the side of the appellant/ respondent therein, one of

the staff member was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked.

5. According to the respondent, deceased was her brother and he

was employed as load man nearly 11 years under the appellant for a monthly

Page No.3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2576 of 2013

salary, while unloading the bamboos sticks from the Hayist lift he fell down

and sustained grievous injuries and thereby died.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant / respondent, totally denied

the nature of employment of the deceased, but the evidence adduced on his

side as R.W.1 admits that at the time of accident the bamboo sticks were

unloaded and it is part of their contract for that purpose he used to engage the

labourers. R.W.1 deposed as follows:

“ v';fs; epWtdj;jpy; ntiy bra;jhh; vd;gJ bgha;ahd jfty;. tHf;fwp"h; fojk; bgw;w gpdd ; nu tHf;F gw;wp bjhpak[ ;. ,we;jth; gzp bra;jjw;F Mjhuk; ,y;iy vdnt tHf;fpw;Fk; fk;bgdpfF ; k; bjhlh;g[ ,y;iy vd bjhptpj;jnjhL FWf;F tprhuizapd; nghJ rt[f;F fl;il brd;lhp'; rPl; thliff;F tpLk; epWtdk; j';fsJ epWtdk; vd;why; rhp vdt[k; 20/04/05 md;W $hd;rd; ypgl; ; fk;bgdpfF; eh';fs; jhd; rt[f;F fl;il mDg;gpndhk; vd;why; rhpay;y rt[fF; fl;il rhuk; nghl;L vLj;JtUk;tiu xg;ge;jk; vd;why; rhp vdt[k;. rt[f;F fl;il vLj;J brd;W vLj;JtUk; gzpapid v';fs; bjhHpyhh;fs; jhd; bra;thh;fs; eh';fs; jhd; me;j bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F Typ bfhLg;nghk;. ,we;j bjhHpyhsp 11 tUk; gzp bra;jJ vdf;F bjhpahJ vdt[k;. vd;W Kjyhsp fhty;Jiwapdhplk;

bfhLj;j !;nll;bkd;l; gw;wp jdf;F bjhpahJ krh/M?1 f;F ve;jtpj

Page No.4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2576 of 2013

kWg;g[k; bjhptpf;ftpy;iy krh/M?1d; go v';fis Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lth; vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhp vdt[k;. khj rk;gsk; mog;gilapy; vd;id jtpu ahUk; ntiy bra;atpy;iy njitg;gLk;nghJ jpdf;Typ mog;gilapy; bjhHpyhsh;fis gzpakh;j;Jnthk; vd bjhptpjJ ; s;sdh;/:”

7. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the evidence of R.W.1

and the documents adduced on the side of the appellant, the Deputy

Commissioner of Labour-I, Workmen Compensation, Teynampet, Chennai

has rightly awarded the compensation. Immediately, after the said accident,

F.I.R was lodged against the appellant / respondent therein / employer. If

really the deceased was not worked under the appellant at the time of the

accident, the appellant ought to have raised an objection at the time of filing

an FIR against him, but no such objection was raised on his side. Evidence of

R.W.1 also reveals that to unload the bamboo sticks labourers were

employed, so the facts and circumstances proves that at the time of the

accident the deceased was worked as a load man under the appellant.

8. Based upon the complaint, the respondent who is the sister of the