Madras High Court
Rajesh vs Swarnalakshmi Mill on 29 January, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.210 to 212 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.Nos.210 to 212 of 2021
Rajesh ..Appellant in C.M.A.No.210 of 2021
Thirumurugan ..Appellant in C.M.A.No.211 of 2021
Vasantha ..Appellant in C.M.A.No.212 of 2021
Vs.
1.Swarnalakshmi Mill
karukkapuram,
Andalore Gate Via,
Rasipuram, Namakkal District.
2.G.P.Arthanari ..Respondents in all C.M.As
Prayer in C.M.A.No.210 of 2021 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, against the order
in W.C.No.397 of 2003 dated 08.05.2006 on the file of the
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Salem.
Prayer in C.M.A.No.211 of 2021 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, against the order
in W.C.No.396 of 2003 dated 08.05.2006 on the file of the
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Salem.
Prayer in C.M.A.No.212 of 2021 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, against the order
in W.C.No.395 of 2003 dated 08.05.2006 on the file of the
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Salem.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.210 to 212 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sivakumar
[in all C.M.As]
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Substantial Questions of law raised are that whether the
authority below is correct in holding that the accident did not occurred
out of an in the course employment; Whether the authority below is
correct in holding that the appellant and others were not taken to mill by
the 2nd respondent's tempo; Whether the authority below is correct to
dismiss the petition eventhough there is a substantial evidence (through
oral and documentary) that accident took place out of and in the course
of employment.
2. All the question of law raised are relates to the factual aspects.
The appeallants are the claimants, filed application under the Workmen
Compensation Act, seeking compensation mainly on the ground that
they were mill workers at Swarnalakshmi mill. The workers were taken
to the Swarnalakshmi mill, Karukapuram and will be taken back after
work through vehicle ACS 307 Tempo bearing Registration No.TDA
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.210 to 212 of 2021
6869. The van belongs to the 2nd respondent one Mr.G.P.Arthanari. On
03.12.2002, when the appellants were travelling in ACS Tempo 307, the
vehicle met with an accident and they sustained injuries.
3. The appellants were admitted in the hospital and discharged
after treatment. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, adjudicated the
issues with reference to the documents as well as the evidences
produced by the respective parties. Even before the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, it is established that the said van, which met
with an accident, belongs to the 2nd respondent Mr.Arthanari. The
claimants have not established that the said van belongs to the 1st
respondent mill. The claimants in their deposition, have further stated
that the above van was driving in a rash and negligent manner and
capsized. There is no employer-employee relationship between the
owner of the van and the appellants/claimants. When there is no
employer-employee relationship between the owner of the vehicle and
the appellants/claimants, there is no reason to fix liability on the 1st
respondent mill. Though the appellant was working in the 1st respondent
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.210 to 212 of 2021
mill, the accident occured when they were travelling in an independent
van belongs to the 2nd respondent and accordingly, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour made a submission that the claim is to be made
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as the owner of the van is
responsible for payment of compensation and the 1st respondent cannot
be held liable.
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the factual matrix
reveals that the appellants were working in the 1st respondent mill, but
they were travelling in a van, which belonged to the 2nd respondent and
the van is no way connected with the 1st respndent mill. The appellants
had not established that the van belongs to the mill. In the absence of
any such proof, the liability cannot be fixed on the Managment of the
mill, in which, the appellants were working.
5. Under those circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour rightly fixed the liability on the 2nd respondent, who is the owner
of the vehicle, which met with an accident and since the applications are
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.210 to 212 of 2021
filed under the Workmen Compensation Act, the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour granted liberty to the appellants to approach the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act.
6. This being the awards passed, this Court do not find any
infirmity or perversity and accordingly, the awards dated 08.05.2006
passed in W.C.Nos.397, 396 & 395 of 2003 stand confirmed and
conseqeuntly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A.Nos.210 to
212 of 2021 stands dismissed. No costs.
29.01.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
To
The Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation,
Salem.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.210 to 212 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.M.A.Nos.210 to 212 of 2021
29.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
