Madras High Court

Palanisamy @ Duraisamy vs M/S.Sri Harish Textiles Process on 27 January, 2021

                                                                        C.M.A.No.2791 of 2009

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 27-01-2021

                                                       CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                               CMA No.2791 of 2009



                     1.Palanisamy @ Duraisamy
                     2.Minor Ilavarasan
                       Represented by his next friend/father
                       Palanisamy @ Duraisamy                        .. Appellants


                                                         vs.


                     M/s.Sri Harish Textiles Process
                     by its Proprietor K.P.Murugan,
                     216/1, Mottaiyan Kadu,
                     Kongampalayam,
                     Chithode,
                     Erode District.                                 .. Respondent




                     PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 (1) of
                     the Workmen Compensation Act, against the Award dated 31.03.2009 made
                     in WC No.507 of 2005 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,

                     1/12


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                               C.M.A.No.2791 of 2009

                     Salem.


                                   For Appellants               : Mr.D.Gopal

                                   For Respondent               : Mr.V.Raghavachari

                                                     JUDGMENT

The Award dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner

of Labour, Salem in WC No.507 of 2005, is under challenge in the present

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The substantial questions of law raised by the appellants for

consideration in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are that whether an

incident of death of a worker while she was in the course of her employment

can be considered as death caused as a result of an accident, especially when

the particular unforeseen incident would not have happened to a workman,

had she not been employed to work under the respondent in that particular

date ? and whether the result of the criminal investigation could be used as

sole decisive factor in a workman compensation claim ?

3. Though these substantial questions of law are related to certain

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2791 of 2009

facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

incident occurred on 13.05.2005 at about 07.00 P.M., the deceased Rajathi

was working in the respondent-Company and the application filed by the

claimants state that she went outside the premises after due hours and

suddenly fell down into the Well and died. Therefore, the claimants are

entitled for compensation as the deceased Rajathi died during the course of

her employment. Notional employment is to be fixed and accordingly,

compensation is to be granted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that it

is not a case of suicide and it is a case of death occurred during the course of

employment and therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants cited the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Daya Kishan Joshi and

Another vs. Dynemech Systems Pvt Ltd [(2018) 11 SCC 642], wherein in

paragraph-13, it has been held as under:-

“13. In the case on hand, the deceased was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2791 of 2009

employed as an engineer, assigned the duty of promoting the sales and installation of the products of the respondent Company. It is not in dispute that a product was installed on the day prior to the accident at Hero Honda Factory situated at Dharu Heda in the State of Haryana which is about 70 km from Delhi State. It is also not in dispute that the deceased on the instruction and direction of the respondent, left for the field work assigned to him on 8-9-2007. After completing the necessary work assigned to him and his co-worker, both of them were returning to Delhi and at that time they met with the unfortunate accident. Thus, under the facts and circumstances, it is to be held that the deceased had to go to Hero Honda Factory, Dharu Heda, Haryana from Delhi for the purposes of carrying out the work entrusted to him and after completing his work he was returning to Delhi. The very nature of his employment made it necessary for him to be there. In view of the same, in our considered opinion, it needs to be held that the accident had taken place in the course of the employment.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2791 of 2009

6. Perusal of the above paragraph, it is very that it was not in

dispute that the deceased in the case before the Supreme Court on the

instructions and directions of the Management, left for the field work

assigned to him on 08.09.2007. Therefore, there is a difference regarding

the facts and circumstances. Before the Supreme Court, the case was that as

per the directions of the Management-official, the employee went out from

the premises and while performing his duties, he sustained injuries and

therefore, it was considered by the Supreme Court as the accident occurred

during the course of employment. But in the present case, the deceased

Rajathi completed her work on that particular day and after due hours, she

went outside and had a quarrel with her husband and thereafter, fell into the

Well and died. A criminal case was also registered, however, no Final

Report has been filed by the Police.

7. In an another judgmnet of the Supreme Court, referred by the

learned counsel for the appellants, in the case of Manju Sarkar and Others

vs. Mabish Miah and Others [(2014) 14 SCC 21], wherein in paragraphs-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2791 of 2009

10 and 11, it has been held as under:-

“10. This Court has in the celebrated decision in B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes [AIR 1964 SC 193] laid down as follows: (AIR p. 199, para 12) “12. Under Section 3(1) of the Act the injury must be caused to the workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

The question, when does an employment begin and when does it cease, depends upon the facts of each case. But the courts have agreed that the employment does not necessarily end when the ‘down tool’ signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working. There is a notional extension at both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of such extension must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case. As employment may end or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leaves his tools but also when he

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2791 of 2009

used the means of access and egress to and from the place of employment.

11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants there is a notional extension in the present case also and we would, therefore, hold that Sajal Sarkar met with the road accident in the course of his employment under Respondents 1 and 2. The courts below have misdirected themselves while dealing with this question and the finding rendered by them is perverse and unsustainable.”

8. In the above case, the Apex Court of India, extended the

benefit of notional employment. Undoubtedly, notional employment can be

extended provided the employee went out after completion of the work or to

perform the duties or instructions issued by the Management.

9. In other words, in case, where an employee just went out from

the Office or a Factory and an accident occurred in front of the Company or

in a place nearby the Company or the Office, then it is possible to grant the

benefit of notional employment for the purpose of grant of compensation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2791 of 2009

However, in the present case, it was established that it is a case of suicide.

When the case of suicide occurred due to some dispute between the husband

and the wife, there is no reason to extend the benefit of notional

employment.

10. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour considered the

deposition of the eye-witness. It is pertinent to note that the deposition of

the owner of the Well in which the deceased Rajathi fell down

Mr.Kolanthasamy, S/o.Perumal Gounder (MW-2), said as follows:-

                                       “vdf;F          vjpu;kDjhuupd;          ghf;lupapd;
                                   bjd;g[wk;     f/vz;    215?y;      brhe;j      tptrha
                                   epyk;       cs;sJ/      vd;        epyj;jpy;      cs;s
                                   fpzw;wpy;      vdf;F          kw;Wk;     ey;iya;ad;

vd;fpw ey;yrhkp ft[zlu; tifawht[f;Fk;

fpzw;Wg; ghj;jpak; cs;sJ/ vjpu;kDjhuUf;Fk; ,e;j fpzw;Wf;Fk; ve;j ghj;jpaKk; cupika[k; fpilahJ/ vjpu;kDjhuupd; ghf;lup f/vz; 216-1?y;

cs;sJ/ ,e;j nf!pd; kDjhuupd; kidtp uhrhj;jp fle;j xU tUlkhf vjpu;kDjhuupd; ghf;lupapy; ntiy ghu;j;jJ bjupa[k;/ me;j ghf;lupapy; jpdKk; fhiy

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2791 of 2009

9 Kjy; khiy 6 kzp tiu ntiy bra;thu;fs;/ nkw;go uhrhj;jp fle;j 13/5/2005y; khiy 6 kzpf;F ntiy Koe;J tPl;Lf;F brd;wij ehd; vd;

                                   epyj;jpy;     ,Ue;J        ghu;j;Js;nsd;/         gpd;dpl;L
                                   mtu;       mtuJ          fztUld;              tha;j;jfuhW
                                   bra;Jtpl;L                           nfhgpj;Jf;bfhz;L
                                   rj;jk;nghl;L       mGJbfhz;nl                  te;J       vd;
                                   tptrha         fpzw;iw              nehf;fp         ntfkhf

ele;jhu;/ fz; ,ikf;Fk; neuj;jpy; nkw;go vd; tptrhaf; fpzw;wpy; tpGe;J jw;bfhiy bra;Jbfhz;lhu;/ ehd; clnd mf;fk; gf;fk; cs;stu;fis cjtpf;F miHj;njd;/ Rkhu; xU kpz neuk;

                                   fHpj;Jj;jhd;              nkw;go              ,we;Jnghd
                                   uhrhj;jpia         fpzw;W             nkl;oy;         J}f;fp
                                   nghl;nlhk;/        mg;nghJjhd;                ,we;Jnghd
                                   uhrhj;jp jdJ fhy;fis jd; g[litahy;
                                   fl;of;bfhz;L                   fpzw;wpy;             tpGe;J
                                   jw;bfhiy bra;Jbfhz;lJ bjupa te;jJ/
                                   vjpu;kDjhuu;       ghf;lupapd;            Kd;g[wk;      Mz;.

bgz; bjhHpyhsu;fSf;F jdpj;jdp ff;T!;

                                   fl;o     mtu;fsJ           cgnahfj;jpy;              cs;sJ
                                   vdf;Fj;bjupa[k;/               nkw;go         ,we;Jnghd
                                   uhrhj;jp      ntiy         Koe;J          mtuJ         tPl;oy;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2791 of 2009

,Ue;J te;J jhd; tptrhaf; fpzw;wpy;

tpGe;J jw;bfhiy bra;Jbfhz;lhu;/@

11. The above deposition of the eye witness reveals that the

deceased Rajathi had committed suicide on account of the wordy quarrel

with her husband. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour arrived a

conclusion that the notional extension of employment cannot be granted as

the same cannot be linked with the suicide committed by the deceased

employee.

12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the

appellant falls in a different footing and therefore, it cannot be compared

with the facts and circumstances regarding the cases decided by the