The Executive Engineer vs Kamatchi
2021 Latest Caselaw 1942 Mad

                                                                             C.M.A.No.217 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 29.01.2021

                                                          CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                    C.M.A.No.217 of 2021
                                                    C.M.P.No.1461 of 2021

                     1.The Executive Engineer,
                       Chengalpattu Electricity Distribution Circle,
                       Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
                       Madurantagam Division,
                       Madurantagam.

                     2.Superintending Engineer,
                       Chengalpattu Electricity Distribution Circle,
                       Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
                       Chengalpattu-603 001.                                        .. Appellants
                                                          vs.

                     1.Kamatchi

                     2.Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II,
                       Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.                                  .. Respondents

                     PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
                     Workmen Compensation Act, against the order dated 15.10.2012 of the
                     second respondent passed in W.C.No.266 of 2011.


                                   For Appellants              : Mr.R.Varalakshmi

                     1/5


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                 C.M.A.No.217 of 2021


                                                         ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated

15.10.2012 of the second respondent passed in W.C.No.266 of 2011.

2. The Substantial questions of law raised by the appellants are under:

1.The second respondent order is an non-speaking order and no reasons were adduced for coming to the said conclusion and hence it is illegal.

2. The second respondent grossly erred in passing the order directing the appellants to pay the compensation totally ignoring the fact tha the Airtel Company is held responsible for the electrocution of the workman and paid compensation to the deceased Mazdoor.

3. The appellants had paid the service benefits and also given a job to the second respondent wife of the deceased workman.

4. The amount of compensation is excessive and arbitrary and the Labour Court erred in interpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court.

5. The award of interest is also not sustainable on law.

3. All the question of law raised are pertains to the factual aspects. The

claim petition was filed by the first respondent on the ground that

Mr.V.Bhagavan, Mazdoor employed by Chengalpattu Electricity

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.217 of 2021

Distribution Circle of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. While closing the

switch at Irumbedu SS IV (Transfromer) for effecting supply to the

Irumbedu Village, during the course of employment, he got electrocuted and

died on 22.04.2010. The first respondent/claimant is the wife of the

deceased. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues with

reference to the documents as well as the evidence produced. The Deputy

Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues with reference to the facts

and the opposite parties in their counter statement clearly admitted the job

of the deceased as well as the factum regarding the accident. The

electrocution occurred on account of misconduct committed by the

Inspector one Mr.Subramaniam. On account of his negligence, the deceased

got electrocuted and died. However, the opposite party/Tamil Nadu

Electricity Board before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had not

established that the Airtel Company is responsible for the purpose of

accident and therefore, the liability is fixed on the second appellant. In fact,

the Airtel Company has not impleaded as a party. Taking note of these

factors, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour passed an award in accordance

with established principles of law and the quantum of award cannot be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.217 of 2021

construed as excess. Therefore, it is a case of death on account of

electrocution when the husband of the claimant was in the course of

employment. This being the factum established, this Court is of the opinion

that the substantial question of law raised deserves no merit consideration as

the question of law relates to factual aspects and the facts and circumstances

are considered elaborately by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour with

reference to the documents and evidence and this Court do not find any

infirmity. Thus, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on

15.10.2012 in W.C.No.266 of 2011 stands confirmed and the Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. The First respondent/claimant is

permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest by

filing an appropriate action and the payments are to be made through RTGS.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

29.01.2021

ssb Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.217 of 2021

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

ssb

To

Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

C.M.A.No.217 of 2021

29.01.2021

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