worked at the building belonging to Mr.Thangavel. Unfortunately, at about 9.00 A.M., on 14.1.2008, while they were working, all of a sudden, at about 11.00 A.M., one asbestos sheet got broken, resultantly, the injured fell down from a height of 35 feet and sustained the aforesaid fracture and injuries on his back. Therefore, he was immediately rushed to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital, Salem, where he was admitted as inpatient and subsequently shifted to Dharan Hospital, Salem for better treatment, wherein he was taking treatment for more than a month as inpatient. However, the First Information Report was also registered on the same date i.e., 14.1.2008 specifically mentioning that the appellant is the employer. Since the injured was always working along with other persons for the past six long years on a monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- paid by the appellant, the second respondent herein cannot implead Mr.Thangavel as the employer, because Thangavel never gave any work and only the appellant used to give work to them all along and on one occasion, namely, on 14.1.2008 also, asked the second respondent to go to the building belonging to Thangavel to remove and dismantle the asbestos sheet and the iron angles from the building situated nearby the petrol bunk at Udayapatti Bye pass Road, Salem. On such direction given by the appellant only, the the second respondent herein along with other persons went and worked, however, their salary used to be given only by the appellant. Therefore, it is not open to the appellant to say that he was not the employer. Secondly, when the First Information Report was registered only against him showing that he was the employer, he has not raised any objection to show the said Thangavel as one of the relevant persons. Moreover, when the claim petition was also filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation, again he did not even raise any objection for rejection of the claim petition for non-joinder of the said Thangavel. Therefore, all along, when it is not his case that he was not the employer, today, he cannot come and say before this Court that there is no relationship of employer-employee between them. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, while considering the evidence placed by both parties, has rightly accepted the case of the second respondent-Claimant that he rightly not impleaded Thangavel, but chose to implicate the appellant as the accused in the First Information Report and also the only employer in the claim petition.
