Madras High Court
Commissioner vs Vellaiyan (Minor) on 7 December, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
1.Commissioner,
Thottiam Panchayat Union,
Thottiam.
2.The President,
Alakkarai Panchayat Union,
Alakkarai, Trichy District. ... Appellants
vs.
1.Vellaiyan (Minor)
2.Subramanian (Minor)
R1 and R2 rep. by their grandfather and natural
guardian V.A.V.Karuppa Chettiar
3.R3 was transposed as second appellant, as per
the order of this Court, dated 13.09.2006,
made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006
4.The Asst. Engineer (Works and Maintenance),
T.N.E.B., Musiri. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30(1)(a) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the order passed by the
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Trichy-20, dated 19.03.2004, made in W.C.No.237 of 2001, received by the
appellant on 19.05.2004.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Baskaran
Government Advocate
For Respondents 1 and 2: No Appearance
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed by
the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, in W.C.No.237 of 2001.
2. The brief facts of the case is that, on 31.01.2001, one Shanmugam, who
was working as a temporary Electrician under the President of Alakkarai
Panchayat Union, while attending the fault in the electrical post in the Village,
was electrocuted and died. The First Information Report for the unnatural death
was registered by the Police and investigated. Seeking Rs.5,00,000/- as
compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, a petition was filed
by the minor children of the deceased. As per the petition, the said Shanumugam
at the time of death, was 35 years old, drawing salary of Rs.4,250/- per month and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
perks of Rs.1,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2, who are the
minor children of the deceased Shanumugam, are entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, after considering the
evidence let in by the respondents 1 and 2, both orally and through documents,
rejected the plea of the second appellant that the deceased Shanmugam was not a
workman under them. Relying upon the statement of witnesses given to the
Police in the course of investigation and the content of the F.I.R., as well as the
Postmortem Report, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, has held that
the said Shanmugam was an employee under the second appellant. Though there
is no proof for his salary or income, taking him as a daily wager, Rs.197.06 has
been fixed as daily wage and Rs.2,46,325/- has been fixed as compensation for
loss of income. In addition, Rs.2,500/- has been fixed for funeral expenses. The
said award is challenged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
4. At the time of admission, this Court has formulated the following
substantial questions of law:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
''1. Whether the deceased would come under the
definition of employee under Section 2 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act?
2. Whether the authority deciding that the deceased
was employee of the third respondent and awarded
compensation in respect of the appellant is maintainable in
law?''
5. The deceased Shanmugam claimed to be a daily wager under the second
appellant Panchayat Union and the First Information Report [Ex.W.1] indicates
that the accident occurred when Shanmugam tried to mend the fault in the
electrical post maintained by the local body, the second appellant. Being the daily
wager and the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, being the minor children of the
deceased employee, they were not in a position to produce any record for
employment of the deceased employee. However, the First Information Report,
which is a contemporaneous document and marked as Ex.W.1, indicates that the
said Shanmugam died while climbing the electric post maintained by the local
body to mend the fault with the authorization and permission of the second
appellant. From Exs.W.1 to W.4, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants have proved
that they are the legal heirs of Shanmugam [Ex.W.4]. The said Shanmugam died
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
on 31.01.2001 due to electrocution. After registering the F.I.R. for unnatural
death, statements have been recorded by the Investigation Officer and it forms
part of Ex.W.1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, taking note of the
fact that the respondents 1 and 2/claimants are unable to produce any proof for
salary, has taken into account the daily wage to fix the compensation.
Accordingly, the amount has been arrived at as per the schedule under the
Workmen's Compensation Act.
Loss of income: 50/100 x 2,500 x 197.06 = Rs.2,46,325
Funeral Expenses: Rs. 2,500
---------------
Total Rs.2,48,825
---------------
6. In the appeal, the question as to whether the deceased Shanmugam falls
within the definition of 'workman' has been raised as one of the substantial
questions of law. For the said purpose, it is relevant to extract below Section 2(1)
(n) of the pre-amended Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which reads as
under:-
''2(1)(n) "workman" means any person any person
who is-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
(i) a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of
Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not
permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-
divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such
capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or
(i-a) (a) a master, seaman or other member of the crew
of a ship,
(b) a captain or other member of the crew of an
aircraft,
(c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic,
cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor
vehicle,
(d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company,
and who is employed outside India in any such
capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft
or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is
registered in India, or
(ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in
Schedule II,
whether the contract of employment was made before
or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is
expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include
any person working in the capacity of a member of the
Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to a workman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead,
include a reference to his dependants or any of them.''
7. Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, listed out the
persons, who are subjected to Section 2(1)(n) of the Act and it is an inclusive
definition. On reading through the list of persons enumerated under Schedule II
of the Act, this Court finds that entry (ix) includes the person employed in setting
up, maintaining, repairing or taking down any telegraph or telephone line or post
or any overhead electric line or cable or post or standard or fittings and fixtures
for the same. Thus, it is very clear that the said Shanmugam, who had been
engaged by the second appellant herein to maintain electric post, has been
electrocuted in the course of his employment and therefore, as an employer the
second appellant and as a superior authority of the second appellant, the first
appellant, both are liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, in his
award dated 19.03.2004, in W.C.No.237 of 2001, has considered all these facts
and passed the award in favour of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants. This Court
finds no error in appreciation of evidence or law. Hence, the substantial questions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
of law (1) and (2) are answered in affirmative. Accordingly, this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No 07.12.2022
Internet : Yes
smn2
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Assistant Engineer (Works and Maintenance),
T.N.E.B., Musiri.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
smn2
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.(MD)No.717 of 2005
DATED : 07.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
