Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinnusamy

Madras HC9 Jan 2020CMA/1226/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a labour commissioner award granting compensation based on the finding of an employer-employee relationship. The court upheld the finding regarding the relationship as a fact not open to substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs. 2,73,865/- to be paid to the applicant along with accrued interest within one month.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chinnusamy — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.01.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

C.M.A. No.1226 of 2016

¶6

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
No.2, Dr.Sankaran Road
Namakkal Town & Taluk ... Appellant
vs.
1.Chinnusamy
2.Tmt.Pappathi ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30(a) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the Award dated
17.08.2015 made in W.C. No.239/2013 on the file of Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Salem.
For Appellant : Ms.K.Ramani
for Mr.C.Paranthaman
For Respondents : Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel for R1
No Appearance for for R2
J U D G M E N T

¶7

Challenge in this appeal is to the Award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem dated 17.08.2015 made in W.C. No.239/2013. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to according to their rank in the court below.

¶8

The only issue raised in this civil miscellaneous appeal is that there is no employer - employee relationship, which has not been established by the applicant before the authority and the authority holding that there was employee - employer relationship between the applicant and the first respondent, by taking note of the insurance policy prevalent at that point of time, awarded compensation.

¶9

The authority, taking note of the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was employer - employee relationship and that accident took place out of and under the course of the employment and as no documentary evidence has been produced with

¶10

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

¶11

regard to age, by taking note of G.O.2(D) No.64 Labour and Employment Department dated 23.07.2009, the authority fixed the minimum wages applicable to the category in which the applicant was employed and arrived at a compensation of Rs.2,73,865/-. As it is a finding of fact and there is no substantial question of law involved in this case, this court is not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant.

¶12

As the petitioner has suffered the loss of earning capacity at 43% as observed by the authority, the amount lying before the authority, shall be paid to the applicant together with accrued interest within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment after making necessary enquiries.

¶13

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

¶14

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Asr
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem
+1 CC to Mr.C.Paranthaman, Advocate sr 2201.
+1 CC to Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, Advocate sr 2455.
C.M.A. No.1226 of 2016
CP(CO)
SP(11/02/2020)

¶15

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinnusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinnusamy

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

Perumal Gounder Vs the Competent Authority

Ajantha Mary Vs D.Ravikumar

S.Sujithra Vs K.Sasidaran

Sujitha Vs Vijayan

P.Srinivasan Vs P.Mayavel

Mr.Sekar,S/O.Subramaniya Vs the Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins., Co., Ltd.,Chennai