Madras High Court
R.Sankaralingam vs Mrs.Francis Mary on 8 December, 2023
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
1/6 W.A.No.3423/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 08-12-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.3423 of 2023
R.Sankaralingam ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Mrs.Francis Mary
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Workmen Compensation Commissioner No.2,
(The Joint Commissioner of Labour No.2)
Chennai – 6. ... Respondents
Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated
28.06.2023, passed in W.P.No.10922 of 2023.
For Appellant : Mrs.S.Suseela Devi
For Respondent 1 : Mr.G.Magesh Kumar
For Respondent 2 : Mr.A.Selvendran,
Spl.Govt.Pleader.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6 W.A.No.3423/2023
JUDGMENT
(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)
This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned single
Judge, dated 28.06.2023, passed in W.P.No.10922 of 2023.
2. Writ Petition was filed by the writ petitioner, first respondent herein,
praying for a writ of mandamus, directing first respondent therein, namely, the District
Collector, Kancheepuram, to take action forthwith under the Revenue Recovery
Act,1890, in order to implement the order of second respondent therein, namely, the
Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act, dated 02.04.2019, in W.C.No.14 of
2018, by recovering the amount of Rs.5,61,520/- with interest, from third respondent
therein, namely, the appellant herein, in view of the communication, dated 19.01.2023
in Aa3/0095/2022, issued by second respondent therein, namely, the Authority.
3. The learned single Judge allowed the said Writ Petition directing the
District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu, to recover the amount from third respondent,
namely, the appellant herein, or or before 31.12.2023. The learned single Judge also
held that the employee/husband of the writ petitioner died in an accident on 16.08.2016
out of and in the course of employment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Since the compensation was not paid, the dependants of the deceased
approached the Authority by filing W.C.No.14 of 2018, wherein the amount mentioned
supra was computed.
5. According to the appellant employer, an ex parte order was passed by
the Authority and an application in I.A.No.187 of 2019 to set aside the said ex parte
order was filed, which was rejected during the covid-19 time by the Authority.
6. The Authority sent a communication, dated 17.08.2022, to the employer
to pay the compensation amount together with interest at 12% per annum within 15
days. Since the amount was not paid, an order was passed by the Authority for
recovering the amount in terms of the Revenue Recovery Act,1890. It has been stated
that during the pendency of the proceedings, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid on
10.07.2023 and the remaining amount of Rs.4,11,520/- was due.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the
deceased was not an employee of the appellant employer, but he was an employee
through a contractor, and, that, on the date of the alleged incident, he was not even an
employee under the contractor and, hence, no amount needs to be paid.
8. We are not inclined to accept the above contention of the appellant, as, if
he had got any grievance, he ought to have preferred an appeal under Section 30-A of
the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923, after depositing the amount determined, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was a pre-condition. Now that the issue has attained finality, the consequential order
cannot be challenged.
9. Learned counsel for first respondent would submit that the dependants of
the deceased employee would be entitled to more than Rs.10.00 lakhs as on the date of
accident, which was in the year 2016, and, apart from Rs.1,50,000/-, which has been
stated by the appellant, no amount is paid or deposited before the Authority.
10. At the time of admission, we asked the learned counsel for the appellant
to contact her client as to whether the issue can be given a quietus to, so that the interest
portion can be waived and that no reduction in the principal amount is permissible. The
learned counsel, after contacting her client, submitted that the appellant employer is
willing to pay the balance principal amount within two weeks, for which, learned
counsel for the respondent would submit that at least some portion of interest will have
to be paid and that the balance amount of Rs.4,11,520/- be rounded off to Rs.5.00 lakhs.
11. Taking note of the submissions of both the parties, we make it clear that
a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs shall be paid by the appellant employer to the respondent
employee over and above the amount already paid within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of this order. As we find that there is no merit in this case, in case of
non-payment of the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs, referred to supra, within the time
stipulated, the appellant will have to pay the entire amount as per the order of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act together with interest and coercive
steps be taken by the Authority to recover the entire amount.
12. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, the
connected C.M.P.No.28072 of 2023 is closed.
Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No 08-12-2023
dixit
(2/2)
To
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Workmen Compensation Commissioner No.2,
(The Joint Commissioner of Labour No.2)
Chennai – 6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
dixit
(2/2)
08-12-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
