Madras High Court
S.Natarajan vs Durai @ Vellai Durai on 19 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.833 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19-01-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
CMA No.833 of 2009
And
MP Nos.1 of 2009 and 1 of 2010
S.Natarajan .. Appellant
vs.
1.Durai @ Vellai Durai
2.Rajarathinam .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the
Workmen Compensation Act, against the Award dated 22.09.2008 made in
W.C.No.644 of 2006 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II,
Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.V.Sairam
For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Nithyanandam
For Respondent-2 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.833 of 2009
JUDGMENT
The Award dated 22.09.2008 passed in W.C.No.644 of 2006 by
the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, is under challenge in the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The first respondent one Mr.Durai @ Vellai Durai filed the
claim petition, seeking compensation under Section 3 of the Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923.
3. The first respondent/applicant is the Mason by profession. The
appellant entrusted the work of constructing water tank to the second
respondent under whom the first respondent was working as Mason. The
appellant told the first respondent to construct a water tank in the top of the
appellant's house measuring 7' x 7'. Accordingly, the first respondent started
constructing the water tank along with one lady helper Tmt.Sulochana.
4. After starting the work, the appellant told the first respondent
to build the water tank with the measurement of 10' x 10' for which the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.833 of 2009
respondent advised the appellant that it is not advisable to build the water
tank in such measurements. But the appellant did not accede to the words of
the first respondent and his helper Tmt.Sulochana and ordered to construct
the water tank with the measurement of 10' x 10' in the top of his house.
5. The first respondent and his helper Tmt.Sulochanna started the
constructing the work of water tank. On 17.05.2006, at about 07.30 P.M.,
the Saram fell down and thereby the first respondent as well as the helper
Tmt.Sulochana fell down from the third floor to the ground and thereby
both of them got severe injuries and especially, the first respondent got
severe injuries all over his body and he has been hospitalised and taking
treatment continuously. Thus, the first respondent sustained injuries during
the course of his employment.
6. In this regard, the police arrested the second respondent-
Contractor for an offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. Though the
first respondent advised the appellant not to construct the water tank on the
top of his house, the appellant did not accede to his words and ordered the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.833 of 2009
first respondent to construct the same and due to which, the first respondent
sustained severe injuries and taking treatment in the hospital continuously.
The first respondent suffered serious disability and he often gets guidance
from Doctors and he is unable to stand for a longtime.
7. The appellant filed counter before the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour contesting the case.
8. The factual aspects narrated by the claimant was disputed by
the appellant as well as by the other opposite party. The Deputy
Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues with reference to the
documents and evidences produced.
9. The findings of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour reveal that the first respondent met with an accident on
17.05.2006 and he sustained severe injuries. He was admitted in the
Hospital and taken treatment continuously. Due to the abovesaid accident,
the first respondent was unable to stand for a longtime.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.833 of 2009
10. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, in clear terms, arrived a conclusion that the
accident occurred during the course of employment. The sequence of facts
and circumstances also reveals that the first respondent met with an accident
and sustained injuries, while he was performing his duties and
responsibilities during the building construction works. At the time of
accident, the first respondent was aged about 36 years.
11. Taking note of all these facts and circumstances, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour fixed the monthly salary of the first respondent as
Rs.4,000/- and accordingly, granted total compensation of Rs.93,427/- along
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
12. This Court is of the considered opinion that Workmen Act is a
Welfare Registration. If the factum regarding the accident is established and
the employer-employee relationship is established, then the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour has to award compensation by adopting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.833 of 2009
principles as contemplated under the provisions of the Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923.
13. In the present case, the factum regarding the accident was
established and the accident occurred during the course of employment and
the first respondent sustained severe injuries on account of the accident and
the employer-employee relationship was also established beyond any pale of
doubt. This being the factum, there is no infirmity or perversity in respect of
the Award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in awarding
compensation.
14. Accordingly, the Award dated 22.09.2008 passed in W.C.
No.644 of 2006 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, stands
confirmed and consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.833 of 2009
stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The
connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
19-01-2021
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.833 of 2009
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.833 of 2009
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
C.M.A.No.833 of 2009
19-01-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
