Madras High Court
N.Balakrishnan vs Tmt.Kanaka on 8 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013
N.Balakrishnan ..Appellant
Vs.
1.Tmt.Kanaka
2.Thiru.K.Chinnasamy ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, against the order dated 21.04.2013
passed by the Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation (Deputy
Commissioner of Labour), Salem, in W.C.No.467 of 2007.
For Appellant : Mr.M.R.Raghavan
For Respondents : Mr.G.Punniyakotti
JUDGMENT
The order dated 21.04.2013 passed in W.C.No.467 of 2007 is
under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013
2. The Substantial Question of law raised in the appeal, which
reads as under:
“1. Would it be proper for the Commissioner to
entertain an application for compensation in the absence
of a contract of employment between the appellant and
the deceased?
2. Would the Commissioner have jurisdiction to
entertain the claim on behalf of the deceased even
though the claimants have not established the fact that
they are “dependants” as contemplated under the Act?
3. Can the claimants seek compensation in the
absence of the fact that the deceased suffered injury
during and in the course of employment with the
appellant?
4. Whether the claim is valid in the absence of
impleading the contractor?
5. Whether the order of the Lower authority is
sustainable since the authority lacks jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the claim?
6. Would the claim be valid in law in the absence
of proof of employment injury?”
3. The respondents/claimants filed an application under Section 22
of the Workmen Compensation Act on the ground that on 03.05.2007,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013
the applicants' son Ramesh was working in the opposite party's Prince
Autoliners Company premises at Belagondapalli to construct an
additional building. There is a High Tension E.B wire passing very
nearer to the proposed construction and that before starting construction,
the said deceased Ramesh and other co-workers informed to the opposite
party that there is electricity passes through the High Tension E.B line
and hence only after stop the electricity, they will able to start
construction. For that the opposite party said that, already told to the
Electricity Board to stop the electricity in the said High Tension E.B line
and no electricity passess through the said High Tension E.B line and
asked the deceased and other co-workers to start construction works.
Believing the words of the opposite party, the deceased and other co-
workers have started the construction works. But on the fateful day on
30.05.2007 at about 04.30 p.m when the applicants' son Ramesh doing
Mason work on the top of the wooden poles, the electricity passed
through the said wooden poles, which was stood for construction work,
and that the applicants' son fell down from the top of the wooden poles
due to electric shock. Immediately, after the accident, the deceased
Ramesh was taken to the Government Hospital, Hosur for treatment.
But, he died on way to the hospital, due to electric shock. He died only
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013
due to the opposite party's own negligence. A case has been registered as
Crime No.125/2007, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C of Mathigiri Police
Station.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues
with reference to the documents and evidences available.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the
employer-employee relationship as well as the accident occurred during
the course of employment were not established and therefore, the
respondents are not entitled for compensation. The learned counsel for
the appellant relied on the deposition of one Mr.N.Balakrishnan / R.W.1.
The said Mr.Balakrishnan is the interested witness. However, he himself
had deposed that the deceased Ramesh was a contract labourer and the
accident also occurred. At the time of accident, the deceased Ramesh
was standing near the wooden platform and performing building works.
6. When these factors are deposed by the opposite party before the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, there is no reason to accept the
contentions of the appellant that the accident was not occurred during
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013
the course of employment. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour
categorically considered the documents and evidences. Even during the
Cross Examination, the said Balakrishnan agreed that the deceased
Ramesh was died, while he was working in the building constructed by
the company belongs to the Balakrishnan. The facts, circumstances as
well as the deposition of witnesses were categorically considered by the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour and accordingly, arrived a conclusion
that the deceased Ramesh died on account of accident and the accident
occurred during the course of employment. The findings of the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour is extracted hereunder:
“jpU/vd;/ghyfpUc&;zd; (vkrh/1) jdJ rhl;rpaj;jpy;. @ehd;
gphpd;!; Ml;nlh iydh;!; vd;w bgahpy; xg;ge;j mog;gilapy; v';fs;
thof;ifahsh;fSf;F rPl; fth;fs; bra;JbfhLf;Fk; bjhHpy;
bra;JtUfpnwd;/ ,we;Jnghd unkc&; v';fs; fk;bgdp bjhHpyhsp
my;y/ mtUf;F ehd; vt;tpjkhd rk;gsKk; bfhLj;jJ fpilahJ/ vdnt
mtUf;Fk;. v';fs; eph;thfj;jpw;Fk; Kjyhsp-bjhHpyhsp cwt[ ,y;iy/
nkYk; ,e;j tpgj;J fk;bgdpf;Fs; cw;gj;jp ntiy tprakhfnth my;yJ
cw;gj;jpf;F rk;ge;jg;gl;l ntiyfs; bra;a[k;nghnjh ele;jJ my;y/ vdnt
kDjhuUf;F eph;thfk; vt;tpjkhd ec&;l <Lk; bfhLf;f ntz;oajpy;iy/
vjph;kDjhuh; fk;bgdp fl;olj;jpy; tphpt[gLj;jg;gLk; ntiy
ele;Jbfhz;oUe;jJ/ ,jw;fhf fl;ol xg;ge;jf;fhuh;fis epakpj;J
mth;fs;jhd; mth;fs; brhe;j Ml;fis Tl;ote;J ntiy bra;J te;jhh;fs;/
,we;Jnghd unkc&; mJnghd;w xg;ge;jf;fhuhpd; bjhHpyhsp
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013
Mthh;/ tpgj;J ele;j rkaj;jpy; ,we;Jnghd unkc&; kuf;fl;ilapyhd
gpshl;ghuj;jpy; epd;Wbfhz;L fl;ol ntiyapy; <Lgl;oUe;jhh;/ v';fs;
fl;olj;jpw;F gf;fj;jpy; v';fs; fhk;bgsz;ow;F btspna Rkhh; 3 mo
Jhuj;jpy; xU kpd;rhu xah; brd;W bfhz;oUf;fpwJ/ Vw;fdnt ,e;j
vjph;kDjhuh; xg;ge;jf;fhuhplk; ,Jnghy xah; mGj;j kpd;fk;g
fl;olj;jpd; gf;fj;jpy; brd;W bfhz;oUg;gjhft[k;. vdnt fl;ol
bjhHpyhsh;fs; ftdkhf gzpg[hpa[khWk;
mwpt[Wj;Jg;gl;oUe;jhh;fs;/ ,J Fwpj;J vjph;kDjhuh; jkpH;ehL
kpd;rhu thhpa mjpfhhpfSf;Fk; jfty; bfhLj;J fk;gpia efh;j;JkhWk;
Vw;ghL bra;jpUe;jhh;/ Mdhy; kpd;rhu thhpak; fk;gpia efh;j;jhky;
fk;gpapd;kPJ ,d;Rypnard; oa{g; nghl;L ghJfhg;g[
bra;Jitj;jpUe;jJ/ vdnt m';F kpd;rhuk; jhf;fp ahUk; ,we;Jnghtjw;F
tha;g;gpy;iy/ ,we;Jnghdth; njitapy;yhky; kpd;rhu xahpy;
bjhl;oUf;fntz;Lk;/ mtuhf jd;dpr;irahf kpd;rhu xah; gf;fk; brd;W
TLjy; Mgj;jpw;F mtiu cs;shf;fpa[s;shh;/ ,we;Jnghdthpd;
m$hf;fpuijahYk;. ntiyf;F rk;ge;jkpy;yhky; mtuhfnt mtiu Mgj;jpw;F
cl;gLj;jpajhYk; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ/@?vd;W bjhptpj;Js;shh;/
jpU/vd;/ghyfpUc&;zd;(vkrh/1) kDjhuh; jug;g[
FWf;Ftprhuizapy;. @v';fsJ epWtd tshfj;jpy; fl;olk; xd;W
fl;ote;njhk;/ mt;thW fl;olk; fl;ote;jnghJ unkc&; vd;w nk!;jphp
,we;Jtpl;lhh; vd;why; cz;ik/@?vd;W bjhptpj;Js;shh;/@
7. In view of the said finding, this Court do not find any perversity
or infirmity with reference to the award passed and accordingly, the
order dated 21.04.2013 passed in W.C.No.467 of 2007 stands confirmed
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013
and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013 stands
dismissed. No costs.
08.03.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
To
The Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Salem.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013
C.M.A.No.2546 of 2013
08.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
