Dismissed

M. Subramaniam v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Madras HC4 Nov 2015CMA/2517/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal against an order awarding workmen's compensation to dependents of a deceased construction worker. The court upheld the Deputy Commissioner of Labour's finding that an employer-employee relationship existed and the quantum of compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

M. Subramaniam Vs the Deputy Commissioner of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 04.11.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

C.M.A. NO.2517 OF 2015 & M.P.NO.1 OF 2015

¶6

M.Subramaniam .. Appellant

¶7

Versus
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Coimbatore.
2.D.Aruna Devi
3.D.Nirmal Kumar
4.D.Narmada
5.Qubart .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, against the order dated 31.08.2015 passed in E.C.No.42 of 2013 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.S.Kumaresan J U D G M E N T

¶10

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, by which, a finding has been given that the second respondent's husband Dhandapani, aged about 42 years, died on 08.01.2013, while he was doing construction work of the first respondent.

¶11

2.Considering the daily wages of the deceased Dhandapani at Rs.600/-along with Dearness Allowance at Rs.89.52, finally fixing the monthly income at Rs.6,901/-, rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,04,463/-. The said order has been put under challenge on the ground that the first respondent has committed serious error in concluding that the deceased Dhandapani and the appellant are not having the employer and employee relationship.

¶12

3.This Court is not able to see any merits in the appeal for the following reasons, firstly, the deceased Dhandapani was employed as one of the workers under the appellant /

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

K.Subramaniam and doing the construction work of the first respondent. Only on the instruction given by the second respondent / the claimant's husband Dhandapani and Murugasamy lifted the mud and bricks to the upper floor through the crane. Without making any safety measures both Dhandapani and Murugasamy loaded the mud and bricks into crane and went to the upstair to switch on the crane. At that point of time, the crane pipe slanted down, as a result, the deceased Dhandapani suffered grievous injuries in his back bone, left and right inter coastal region and thereafter, he was taken to K.G.M. Hospital for giving first aid and thereafter, he was admitted in the C.M.C. Hospital for further treatment. Unfortunately, he died on 08.01.2003. These facts have been properly considered by the first respondent / the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore.

¶15

4.Therefore, when the facts have been rightly considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, a sum of Rs.5,04,463/- has been fixed as total compensation. Therefore, this Court is not able to see any infirmity in the impugned order and also finding that there is no merit in the appeal, the same fails and is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.

¶16

5.The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the entire compensation amount awarded has been deposited before the first respondent. Therefore, it is open to the claimants to move an application to withdraw the same.

¶17

Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar sri

¶18

To The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore. +1 cc to Mr.S.Kumaresan Advocate sr.60837/15

¶19

C.M.A. NO.2517 OF 2015 & M.P.NO.1 OF 2015

¶20

aa14/12/2015

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Subramaniam v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Subramaniam v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S United India Insurance Co. Vs K.Sudharsan

The Managing Director, Vs Rajavelu

The New India Assurance Vs R.Raghu Balan

Murugan Vs the Managing Director

M/s.Si Media Polytech Vs The Assistant Commercial Tax

Yesu Chandra Bose Vs R.Rajagopal IAS