The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal against a workmen's compensation award. It upheld the principal's liability and the Commissioner's decision to calculate compensation based on the deceased's post-mortem age of 30 years.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed and the original award was confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMA(MD)No.1739 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY CMA(MD)No.1739 of 2013
and
CMP(MD)Nos.6417 and 6420 of 2019
… Appellants/Respondents
versus
… Respondents/Petitioners
Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, against the award dated 24.12.2012 made in W.C.No.24 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tirunelveli.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Ganeshamoorthi For Respondents : Mr.N.Sathish Balan
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed against the award dated 24.12.2012 made in W.C.No.24 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tirunelveli.
1/8
CMA(MD)No.1739 of 2013
petition, the contractor was not impleaded, that aspect was also not considered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was about 34 years. However, the Court below, based on the postmortem certificate (Ex.B2), had fixed the age of the deceased as 30 years. Therefore, interference of this Court is required in this appeal.
a) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Tirunelveli, is correct in fastening the liability in toto with the Appellant herein?
b) Whether the award of Rs.3,73,800/- fixed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's is just and proper and not exaggerated?
c) Whether the deceased was a Workman under Section 12(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
d) Whether the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has no power to issue pay and recovery order and direct the appellant to file a civil suit?
e) Whether under Section 3(2) of Workmen's Compensation Act, deals with 'Employer's liability for compensation', as per Section 12(3) nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing an employee from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of principal, then the employer is liable is correct?
“12(2) Where the principal is liable to pay https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be
2/8
CMA(MD)No.1739 of 2013
indemnified by the contractor, [or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the workman could have recovered compensation,] and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.”
10.. In the present case, the appellants engaged a maistry/contractor for the construction work and thereby, the appellants would become as a master and the said maistry/contractor would come under the direct control of the master. Further, it is the duty of the said maistry/contractor to report the day-to-day activities and to follow the instructions given by the master. Further, the contractor/maistry tooks the persons for daily wages.
3/8
CMA(MD)No.1739 of 2013
this Court do not find any perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CO)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
ogy To
CMA(MD)No.1739 of 2013 01.10.2019
SMA/30/01/2020/4P/4C
4/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner was correct in fastening entire liability on the principal appellant?
Whether the award of compensation based on the post-mortem age was just and proper?
Whether the deceased qualified as a workman under the Act?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Paulammal & Ors.
Pagavathi & Ors.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
