Madras High Court
S.Natarajan vs R.Pandian on 19 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.832 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19-01-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
CMA No.832 of 2009
And
MP No.1 of 2009
S.Natarajan .. Appellant
vs.
1.R.Pandian
2.Rajarathinam
3.Durai @ Vellai Durai .. 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.611 of 2006 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II,
Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.V.Sairam
For Respondent-1 : Person Not Found
For Respondent-2 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar
For Respondent-3 : Mr.R.Nithyanandam
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.832 of 2009
JUDGMENT
The Award dated 22.09.2008 passed in W.C.No.611 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.R.Pandian filed the claim petition,
seeking compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act,
1923.
3. The first respondent/applicant is the son of the deceased
Tmt.Sulochana, who died on 30.05.2006 during the course of her
employment, more specifically, while she was working under the appellant.
The mother of the first respondent, at the time of her death, was aged about
38 years. The first respondent is a differently abled person and sole legal
heir as well as the dependent of the deceased.
4. The mother of the first respondent Tmt.Sulochana was working
as Chittal in building construction work for two years. The mother of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.832 of 2009
first respondent was living separately and his father was not maintaining the
mother as well as himself. On 17.05.2006, the building work commenced at
09.30 A.M. The appellant provided instructions to Chittals to perform their
works in the one storeyed building and the water tank was under
construction on the roof of the building. At about 05.30 P.M., the mother of
the first respondent and one Mr.Durai, who was also the opposite party,
were applying concrete upon the steel sheets. Both of them were standing
on the Steel Rods that were placed on pillars, erected to support the water
tank. At that time, the mother of the first respondent received the mixture
and put it on the steel sheet and the other opposite party also applied the
same evenly. The mother of the first respondent fell down and caught hold
the branch of a tree next to the building. The mother of the first respondent
lost her balance and fell down on the floor. She sustained severe injuries
and became unconscious. She was admitted in Tambaram Hindu Mission
Hospital, Chennai and there was a delay in taking her to the hospital.
Thereafter on 30.05.2006, the mother of the first respondent died in General
Hospital at EVR Road, Chennai. FIR was registered on 20.05.2006. Based
on the complaint given by one Mr.G.Ravi, a criminal case was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.832 of 2009
instituted against the appellant.
5. The appellant filed counter before the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour contesting the case.
6. The factual aspects narrated by the claimant was disputed by
the appellant as well as by the other opposite parties. The Deputy
Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues with reference to the
documents and evidences produced.
7. The findings of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour reveal that the mother of the first respondent deceased Sulochana
met with an accident on 17.05.2006 and after treatment, she died on
30.05.2006.
8. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.832 of 2009
and circumstances also reveals that the mother of the first respondent met
with an accident and sustained injuries, while she was performing her duties
and responsibilities during the building construction works.
9. Taking note of all these facts and circumstances, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour fixed the monthly salary of the deceased as
Rs.4,000/- and accordingly, granted total compensation of Rs.3,96,620/-
along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
10. 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
principles as contemplated under the provisions of the Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923.
11. In the present case, the factum regarding the accident was
established and the accident occurred during the course of employment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.832 of 2009
the deceased Sulochana died 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.
12. Accordingly, the Award dated 22.09.2008 passed in W.C.
No.611 of 2006 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, stands
confirmed and consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.832 of 2009
stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The
connected miscellaneous petition is 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.832 of 2009
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.832 of 2009
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
C.M.A.No.832 of 2009
19-01-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
