Madras High Court
A.Syam vs R.Palanisamy on 25 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.1167 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25-01-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
CMA No.1167 of 2016
And
CMP No.8786 of 2016
1.A.Syam
2.A.Mohana
3.Deebeha
Arumugam (died) .. Appellants
vs.
1.R.Palanisamy
2.M/s.Tamil Nadu Cartons,
12, Kombai Thottam,
Misssion Street,
Tirupur-641 604.
3.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
C.G.Complex,\
139, Kumaran Road,
Tirupur-641 601. .. Respondents
[cause title accepted as per the Court order dated
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1167 of 2016
22.04.2016 made in CMP No.1751 of 2016
in CMA SR No.5575 of 2016 by SVN, J.]
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the
Workmen Compensation Act, against the Award dated 30.10.2015 made in
WC No.402 of 2006 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Salem.
For Appellants : Mr.C.E.Pratap
For Respondent-1 : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondent-3 : Ms.I.Malar
JUDGMENT
The Award dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour, Salem in WC No.402 of 2006, is under challenge in the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The substantial question of law has not been properly framed in
the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. However, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the employer-employee
relationship has been erroneously decided by the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour and based on the said substantial question of law, the present Civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1167 of 2016
Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.
3. However, the fact remains that the claimant Mr.Palanisamy was
worked as a Loadman engaged by one Mr.Arumugam. On 17.01.2006, at
about 07.00 P.M., as per the instructions of the said Mr.Arumugam, the
claimant boarded on the Eicher Van bearing Registration No.TN-39-E-6788
for the purpose of loading cardboard boxes, which were to be unloaded at
Tirupur. While the claimant was loading the goods on the said Eicher Van,
suddenly he fell down from the van on the floor and sustained grievous
injuries on the back side of his head and bleeding much through his nose
and ears.
4. The accident occurred when the claimant Mr.Palanisamy was
working under the said Mr.Arumugam-first opposite party in the application
as the Loadman. He was taken to Arvind Hospital and was given first aid
treatment and thereafter, taken treatment at Kumaran Hospital, Tiruppur. He
was admitted as inpatient on 17.01.2006 and discharged on 25.01.2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1167 of 2016
5. The claimant filed application under the Workmen
Compensation Act, seeking compensation.
6. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues
with reference to the documents and the evidences produced by the
respective parties.
7. The factum regarding the accident was established and the
nature of injuries were also established through medical records. The
Discharge Summary was also filed as a document and the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour has made a finding that he sustained head injuries
resulted bleeding from skull. The claimant is suffering from frequent
headache on account of his head injuries. Therefore, the disability was fixed
as 15%. The nature of injuries as well as the treatment taken by the claimant
was established by filing medical records. The salary of the claimant was
fixed as Rs.4,000/-, which cannot be construed as excessive.
8. The accident occurred on 17.01.2006 and during the relevant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1167 of 2016
point of time, the minimum wages notified by the Central Government
under Section 4-A was Rs.4,000/-. Thus, there is no infirmity, as such, in
the matter of fixation of salary.
9. As far as the employer-employee relationship is concerned, the
claimant clearly deposed that the Brindavan Cartons belong to the first
opposite party Mr.Arumugam. He was engaged by the Brindavan Cartons
on a particular day for loading and unloading of Cardboard Boxes. When
the fact regarding engagement of the claimant as Loadman, was established
and this being the factum, this Court is of the considered opinion that there
is no question of law needs to be adjudicated, as actually it was established
before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the claimant was engaged
by the Brindavan Cartons belong to the first opposite party Mr.Arumugam.
10. This being the factum established, there is no question of law
raised. The factual question raised is also deserves no merit consideration as
documents and evidences reveal that the accident was established during the
course of employment and the quantum of compensation fixed is also just
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1167 of 2016
and in consonance with the established principles.
11. Accordingly, the Award dated 30.10.2015 passed in W.C.
No.402 of 2006 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, stands
confirmed and consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1167 of 2016
stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
12, The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire Award
amount with accrued interest by filing an appropriate application and
payments are to be made through RTGS.
25-01-2021
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1167 of 2016
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1167 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
C.M.A.No.1167 of 2016
25-01-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
