The Madras High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the rejection of a workmen's compensation claim. The court upheld the labor commissioner's finding that the deceased was a tourist, not an employee, and affirmed that courts cannot substitute factual findings.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed. No costs awarded.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
CMA.No.557 of 2011
vs. 1. Shanmugam 2. R.Viswanathan 3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Government Arts College Road, Coimbatore. 4. Sitaramiyer .. Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the proceedings in WC.No.22 of 2009 of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Forum/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore dated 4.11.2010 received by the Appellants on 14.12.2010 and pray to set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P. Saravana Sowmyan For Respondents : Mr.Elveera Ravindran, For R2 and R3 J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Forum (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-), Coimbatore, dated 4.11.2010 made in W.C.No.22 of 2009.
The case of the appellant is that the authority, ought not to have rejected the plea of the petitioner that he was employed as a cleaner and during his employment, he died while cleaning the vehicle in the pond and came to an erroneous conclusion that there is no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the 3rd respondent.
final examination, he gone for a tour in the tourist bus as a tourist and that the deceased, fell into the pond at Suseendram and died .
' ehd; fiykfs; ouhty;!; g!;rp;y; Xl;Leuhf ,Ue;J tUfpnwd;/ vd;Dila o vd; 38 vk; 5335 vz; vd;w L:hp!;l; g!;!py; 8/5/2008?k; jpajp ,ut[ nfhak;g[j;Jhhpy; ,Ue;J gy ,l';fSf;F Rw;Wyh brd;Wtpl;L 10?05?08 jpajp fhiy 11/00 kzpf;F RrPe;jpuk; nfhapy; ghh;f ; f te;J ,w';fpndhk;/ g!;rpy; Mz;fSk; bgz;fSkhf Rkhh; 58 ngh; cz;L/ mjpy; vdJ ez;gh; fnzrdpd; kfd; kzpfz;lDk; L:h;f;F te;jpUe;jhd;/ g!;ir tpl;L ,w';fpat[ld; kzpfz;ld; Rkhh; 11/30 kzp mstpy; RrPe;jpuk; bjg;gf;Fsj;jpy; if fhy;fis fGtptpl;L tUtjhfg; nghdhd;/ gpd;g[ gy neukhfpa[k; jpUk;gp tutpy;iy/ vdnt. nkw;go kzpfz;ld; Fsj;jpy; K:H;fp ,we;J ,Ug;gjhfj; bjhpfpwJ/ kzpfz;lid fz;Lgpoj;J jUkhW gzpt[ld; ntz;Lfpnwd;/ '
Perusal of Ex.P.3 would reveal that the deceased travelled in the bus as a passenger and not as a cleaner, therefore it is evident that there was no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the 3rd respondent.
Sub Assistant Registrar
msr
To :
The Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Forum/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore
+1 cc to Mrs.Elveera Ravindran,Advocate Sr NO.7134/20
CMA.No.557 of 2011
GP(CO) GS(18/05/2020)
Ganesan and others
Shanmugam and others
S. Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
