Dismissed

A.Muthupetchi, v. the Labour Officer

Madras HC8 Jun 2022WP(MD)/20646/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking death benefits under the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers scheme. Finding that the petitioner fabricated the date of death of her deceased son in submitted documents to claim benefits, the court refused to pass any order in her favor.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order for death benefits granted; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

A.Muthupetchi, Vs the Labour Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.20646 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN W.P.(MD)No.20646 of 2013 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2013

A.Muthupetchi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Labour Officer, (Social Security Scheme), Office of the Labour Officer (Social Security Scheme), Madurai.

¶7

... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER :- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent's order in Na.Ka.No.87/2013 dated 29.10.2013, quash the same and directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 29.09.2013 and pass orders to grant the death benefits of the petitioner's deceased son namely Sivan @ Sivanathan to her under the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Welfare Scheme, 1994 within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Aravind Raj For Respondent : Mr.D.Gandiraj Special Government Pleader

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.87/2013 dated 29.10.2013, quash the same, direct the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 29.09.2013 and pass appropriate orders to grant the death benefits of the petitioner's deceased son namely Sivan @ Sivanathan to her under the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Welfare Scheme, 1994, within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the son of the petitioner namely Sivan @ Sivanathan had worked as Construction Worker and was a member of Thirumangalam Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam. His name was registered under the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Welfare Scheme, 1994 and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

1/3

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.20646 of 2013

¶15

registration was periodically renewed till 15.08.2011. In the first week of August 2012, renewal application was submitted by the son of the petitioner through his trade union. On 23.08.2012, the said Sivan, while he was working in a power grid, fell down from the ladder and died. His registration under the respondent was renewed on 05.09.2012. As per the said Scheme, the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, due to the death of her son. Therefore, she submitted an application to the respondent on 29.10.2013, but the same was rejected stating that she had fabricated the documents to show that her son died on 23.09.2012, instead of 23.08.2012.

¶16

It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the defence of the respondent that the petitioner had forged the date of death of her son in the documents is not correct. Thus, she prayed for quashing of the order of the respondent and passing appropriate orders to grant the death benefits of her deceased son.

¶17

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that at the time of death of the said Sivan @ Sivanathan, his registration under the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers (Construction Workers) Welfare Scheme, 1994, was not in-force for the reason that it was not renewed. Renewal was made only on 05.09.2012. Further, the petitioner had forged the date of death of her son as 23.09.2012, instead of 23.08.2012 in the Xerox copies of the Death Certificate, Post-mortem Certificate and the First Information Report. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected.

¶18

This Court considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both the parties and perused the records.

¶19

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner sent an application seeking death benefits of her deceased son namely Sivan @ Sivanathan on 21.11.2012 along with the copies of the Death Certificate, Post-Morterm Certificate and First Information Report. In all these documents, the date of death of the petitioner's son is mentioned as 23.09.2012 . When the petitioner was asked to produce the original documents, she has produced the original Death Certificate, which showed that the date of death of the petitioner's son is 23.08.2012. Thus, it is apparent from the impugned order that the petitioner, in order to get the death benefits, had forged the date of death of her son in the aforesaid documents as 23.09.2012. Then renewed the registration on 05.09.2012. She has played fraud by altering the date of death of her son in the material documents to get the death benefits. Thus, this Court finds no reason to pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

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

¶21

2/3

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.20646 of 2013

¶23

In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/07/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

ssb

¶28

¶29

The Labour Officer, (Social Security Scheme), Office of the Labour Officer (Social Security Scheme), Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-24852[F] dated 09/06/2022 )

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.20646 of 2013 08.06.2022

¶31

SS/06/07/2022/ 3P 3C

¶32

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

¶33

3/3

A.Muthupetchi, v. the Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Muthupetchi, v. the Labour Officer

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

P. Prabakaran Vs T.K.Rajendran, IPS

M.Mahendran, Vs the Presiding Officer

Shanmugavelsamy, Vs the Director General of Police

M.Nirmala, Vs the District Elementary

A.Ramesh Vs the Secretary to Government

P. Ramachandran, Vs the Managing Director