The Management vs G.Kandaswamy
2021 Latest Caselaw 4191 Mad

                                                                                   C.M.A.No.153 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 18.02.2021

                                                             CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                C.M.A.No.153 of 2021
                                                        and
                                                C.M.P.No.1030 of 2021

                     The Management,
                     M/s.Granrock Tiles
                     Polavakalipalayam,
                     Gobichettipalayam,
                     Erode District.
                     ..Appellant

                                                               Vs.

                     G.Kandaswamy                                                    ..Respondent

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
                     Workmen Compensation Act, against the order under Workmen
                     Compensation Act dated 06.06.2016 made in W.C.No.2 of 2013 on the
                     file      of    Commissioner      for     Workmen    Compensation       (Deputy
                     Commissioner of Labour), Salem.


                                      For Appellant          : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar

                                      For Respondent         : Mr.R.M.D.Nasurllahkhan
                                                               For Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan



                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                  C.M.A.No.153 of 2021

                                                    JUDGMENT

The Award dated 06.06.2016 passed in W.C.No.2 of 2013 is

under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The substantial question of law raised are that whether the

authority under the Workmen Compensation Act is justified for

awarding compensation without age proof; Whether the authority under

the Workmen Compensation Act is correct in awarding compensation to

the workman without suffering any disability; Whether workman entitled

compensation without any disability and able to continue work.

3. All the Substantial questions of law are relatable to the factual

circumstances and there is no acceptable substantial question of law

deserve further adjudication on legal aspects. The respondent/injured

filed an application under the Workmen Compensation Act, seeking

compensation mainly on the ground that he was working as an employee

in the appellant Establishment as Grinding Operator and he was engaged

as Post Rate employee. It is a Grinding Factory and while he was

working on 20.05.2012 at about 11 a.m, the grinding machinery fell

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.153 of 2021

down and the respondent sustained grievous injuries, he filed an

application seeking compensation under the Workmen Compensation

Act.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues

with reference to the documents and the evidences produced by the

parties. The findings regarding the accident was relied on for the purpose

of grant of compensation. Regarding the age, now questioned by the

appellant, this Court is of the opinion that even in the counter filed by

the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, no such

ground was taken. Based on the available records, the age of the

respondent/injured was considered by the Deputy Commissioner of

Labour and this Court in this appeal, cannot re-adjudicate the concluded

fact with reference to the age of the respondent/injured. The Deputy

Commissioner of Labour found that the employer-employee relationship

existed at the time of accident and the accident also occurred during the

course of employment. Then the medical records and the nature of

injuries and other evidences were considered and based on that, the

compensation was awarded.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.153 of 2021

5. Even in the finding, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour stated

that the age of the injured was 38 years. However, the Hospital records

are revealed that the age of the respondent/injured was 32 years. Thus,

the said age was taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of

compensation, this Court is of an opinion that the concluded facts with

reference to the same documents, which were not disputed by the

appellant during the course of trial, cannot be re-adjudicated in the

present appeal and the present appeal can be adjudicated only on the

substantial question of law raised.

6. As far as the age is concerned, it was fixed as per the Medical

Records and the said fact was not disputed by the appellant before the

Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The quantum of compensation fixed

by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is also in accordance with the

established principles and in consonance with the provisions of the

Workmen Compensation Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.153 of 2021

7. Thus, the Award dated 06.06.2016 passed in W.C.No.2 of

2013 stands confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in

C.M.A.No.153 of 2021 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

18.02.2021

kak Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order

To

1. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Salem.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.153 of 2021

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

kak

C.M.A.No.153 of 2021

18.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/