Madras High Court
Meera Sinha vs K.M.Murugesan on 2 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
and C.M.P.No.9118 of 2004
Meera Sinha .. Appellant
Vs.
1.K.M.Murugesan
2.M/s Thirupathi Enterprises .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen Compensation Act, against the final order dated 23.07.2001 made in
W.C.Case No.195 of 1994 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Court of
the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation II, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Ravichandran
For Respondents : RR 1 & 2 – not ready in notice
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant
against the final order dated 23.07.2001 passed in W.C.Case No.195 of 1994
Page No.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Court of the Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation II, Chennai – 6.
2.The appellant herein is the 1st respondent in W.C. Case No.195 of
1994 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation- II,
Chennai - 600 006. The claimant in W.C.No.195 of 1994 is the 1st respondent
herein who claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him, in the
accident that occurred on 29.06.1993, during the course of his employment.
3.After full trial, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour - II awarded
compensation of Rs.49,265/- payable by the appellant herein. Aggrieved by
that, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4.The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in
this appeal:-
“Whether the order of the Commissioner is
sustainable in law, since the first respondent, against
whom the award is passed, has denied the very fact that
Page No.2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
he is the Proprietor of Sugam Industries and no other
material is placed before the Court so as to establish that
the first respondent is the Proprietor of Sugam
Industries ?”
5.The facts reveal that the claimant worked as a Dye & Servicing
Technician. He met with an accident on 29.06.1993, arising out of and in the
course of employment. He sustained the following injuries:-
(i)crush amputation of middle, ring and little fingers in the left hand.
(ii)Total crush amputation of proximal index.
The claimant suffered 50% disability. He claimed compensation of Rs.98,530/-
under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act.
6.The appellant contested the claim by stating that the claimant is not a
worker; further denied the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant.
7.Before the Deputy Commissioner, on the side of the claimant, 2
witnesses were examined and marked 8 documents. On the side of the
Page No.3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
Appellant, one witness was examined and 2 documents were marked. On
analysis of entire evidence, the claimant has been awarded compensation of
Rs.49,265/- and the liability was fixed on the appellant/employer. Challenging
the said finding, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
8.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant
is running the business of installing, servicing and repairing of Refrigerators
under the name and style of 'Ice-berg Refrigeration and Company' and she is no
way connected with Sugam Industries. The claimant/1st respondent is bound to
prove that he is an employee of the appellant’s Company. But no documentary
proof was let in before the Deputy Commissioner, to prove his employee
status. The appellant has not issued any appointment order to the claimant. The
Deputy Commissioner failed to note that the work claimed to be done by the
claimant viz., Dye and Servicing Technician is no way connected with the
work carried out by the appellant in installing, servicing and repairing of
Refrigerator. The averments regarding the accident and the injuries sustained
by the claimant during the course of employment cannot be sustained since the
establishment viz., Sugam Industries has not been run by the appellant,
Page No.4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
actually, the said Sugam Industries was situated adjacent to the appellant’s
Company and they vacated the premises long back. The testimony of the
claimant that he was sent to the 2nd respondent's office, by the appellant along
with Selvam and Rajendran to the alleged work is totally unsustainable.
9.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials
available on record.
10.In this case, the claimant was employed as Technician in the
appellant’s Company and he was said to be working from 21.01.1993. Initially,
one Ganesh Sinha was the Proprietor of the said Company. In the cross
examination, A.W.2 – Selvam deposed that he was appointed by Ganesh Sinha
and not by the appellant. However, the accident took place at the premises of
Thirupathi Enterprises.
11.During the pendency of this case before the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour - II, Ganesh Sinha died and his wife – Meera Sinha was brought on
record. She denied all the averments made in the claim petition and she
Page No.5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
specifically denied the employment of the claimant under her husband. In the
absence of any evidence to the contra and based on Ex.A.8 – Copy of
accident register, in which, it has been stated that the claimant had sustained
crush injuries while working in Thirupathi Enterprises, Ambattur and Ex.A.2 –
Ice Burg Company’s service /delivery challan No.632 dated 08.05.1993, in
which, in the column of Technician, the names of Rustam and Murugesan have
been stated and though the name of Murugesan has been disputed by the
appellant, they did not provide the original copy, only adverse inference can be
drawn. Hence, the Tribunal based on Accident Register – Ex.A.8, Hospital
records – Exs.A3 & 4 has rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant was
employed in the appellant’s Company and that on 29.06.1993, the claimant met
with an accident at the premises of the 2nd respondent – Thirupathi Enterprises,
Ambattur and sustained injuries, arising out of an in the course of his
employment.
12.Further, it is settled preposition of law that even if there is no
relationship with the principal employer, if the workman is engaged for the
service of principal employer, workman shall be entitled for compensation. In
Page No.6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
this case, there is no doubt that the accident had occurred only during the
course of employment. Going by the evidence and on entire records, the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai passed the order dated
23.07.2001 made in W.C.Case No.195 of 1994 directing the appellant to pay
the compensation, such finding does not warrant any interference at the hands
of this Court. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant.
13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Order of
the Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Court of the Commissioner of
Workmen's Compensation II, Chennai, dated 23.07.2001 made in W.C.Case
No.195 of 1994 is hereby confirmed. The claimant/1st respondent is permitted
to withdraw the award amount, by filing necessary petition before the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour II, Court of the Commissioner of Workmen's
Compensation II, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
02.03.2022
Jer
Page No.7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour II,
Court of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation II
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court of Madras.
Page No.8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
J.NISHA BANU, J.,
Jer
C.M.A.No.1664 of 2004
02.03.2022
Page No.9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
