Claimants appealed rejection of a workmen compensation claim for a deceased who was the vehicle owner's son. Failing to produce any evidence of employer-employee relationship and absent on hearing, their appeal was dismissed with no substantial question of law found.
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.1652 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A. No.1652 of 2021
vs.
.... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30(1) of Workmen Compensation Act challenging the order dated 07.01.2021 passed in W.C. No.537 of 2014 by Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, (Joint Commissioner of Labour), Salem.
For Appellants :No appearance For Respondents :No appearance - R1 Mr.G. Guru Swaminathan for M/s.Nageswaran & Narichania for R2
JUDGMENT
There is no representation on the side of the appellants. On the last
hearing date, i.e., on 04.04.2024, the learned counsel for the appellants
1/4
C.M.A. No.1652 of 2021
sought time to file additional documents to prove that there was an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the employer. The appellants are the claimants and they have challenged the order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation in this appeal. In the impugned order, the claim of the appellants has been rejected on the ground that the deceased was the son of the owner of the vehicle and there was no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle.
2/4
C.M.A. No.1652 of 2021
22.04.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vsi2
3/4
C.M.A. No.1652 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
To
1.The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Joint Commissioner of Labour), Salem.
2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 104.
C.M.A. No.1652 of 2021
22.04.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the claimants proved an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the insured vehicle owner to sustain a workmen compensation claim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madhamma
Venkatesan
Thangamani
M. Chinnaraj
Future General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
