The High Court disposed of a civil miscellaneous appeal and writ petition challenging a compensation order by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The proceedings were terminated following an out-of-court settlement wherein respondents paid ₹1,50,000 each to the claimant.
The appeals and writ petitions were closed upon settlement of compensation.
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.
C.M.A.No.2565 of 2009 And W.P.No.27330 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.2565 of 2009 And W.P.No.27330 of 2008 And M.P.No.1 of 2008
C.M.A.No.2565 of 2009:
Dhandapani
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Samikannu Konar 2.Krishnamoorthy
... Respondents
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 22.11.2007 in W.C.No.270 of 2004 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Labour II, Madras (Camp at Cuddalore).
For Appellant : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman For Respondents : M/s.B.N.Sivagamasundari for R1 Mr.K.Prabakar for R2
W.P.No.27330 of 2008:
I.Samikannu Konar ... Petitioner
1/5
Vs.
C.M.A.No.2565 of 2009 And W.P.No.27330 of 2008
2.T.Krishnamoorthy 3.A.Dhandapani
... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 22.11.2007 made in W.C.No.270 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workman Compensation / Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai – 600 006 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s.B.N.Sivagamasundari
For Respondents : Mr.S.Surya for R1 Additional Government Pleader Mr.K.Prabakar for R2 Mr.S.Kalyanaraman for R3
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
The civil miscellaneous appeal as well as the writ petition have been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2007 passed in W.C. No.270 of 2004 by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai.
2/5
C.M.A.No.2565 of 2009 And W.P.No.27330 of 2008
2.The appellant in C.M.A.No.2565 of 2009/ third respondent in W.P.No.27330 of 2008/ claimant had filed claim petition in W.C. No.270 of 2004 before the Commissioner for Workman Compensation/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II vide order dated 22.11.2007 fixed a sum of Rs.1,24,502/- as compensation and directed the first respondent therein to deposit the compensation amount before the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai, by way of demand draft, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and also observed that in default of such deposit, simple interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the incident till the date of deposit will be recovered. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred C.M.A.No.2565 of 2009 and the first respondent in the claim petition has preferred W.P.No.27330 of 2008.
3.When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in the writ petition, submitted that during the pendancy of the appeal and the writ 3/5
C.M.A.No.2565 of 2009 And W.P.No.27330 of 2008
petition, the matter was amicably settled inbetween the parties and the petitioner and the second respondent in the writ petition agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each, to the third respondent in the writ petition/ claimant and the third respondent in the writ petition/ claimant agreed to receive the same. Accordingly, the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the second respondent in the writ petition paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each, to the third respondent in the writ petition/ claimant.
4.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in the writ petition, the civil miscellaneous appeal and the writ petition are closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
08.11.2023
pri
Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No To
4/5
C.M.A.No.2565 of 2009 And W.P.No.27330 of 2008
M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri
C.M.A.No.2565 of 2009 And W.P.No.27330 of 2008 And M.P.No.1 of 2008
08.11.2023
5/5
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Samikannu Konar
Samikannu Konar
Krishnamoorthy
T. Krishnamoorthy
A. Dhandapani
Commissioner for Workman Compensation
M. DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
