This second appeal challenged the lower courts' decree awarding compensation to a casual worker injured while removing stones. The Court held the suit was not barred under the Employees' Compensation Act as the worker was a casual employee without job security, dismissing the appeal.
Second Appeal dismissed; consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed.
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.
S.A.No.693 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.06.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.No.693 of 2021 and
C.M.P.No.13900 of 2021
Elumalai
... Appellant
Vs.
Pandiyan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.42 of 2018 dated 21.11.2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.160 of 2012 dated 15.11.2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Baskar
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings
of the Courts below. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein and the respondent is the plaintiff. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.
1/6
S.A.No.693 of 2021
for the injuries sustained by him while carrying out the work of removal of stones entrusted to him by the defendant in the defendant's land. The defendant disputed his liability to pay compensation by stating that the suit is not maintainable and further, the plaintiff is not entitled for any compensation.
2/6
S.A.No.693 of 2021
filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as per Section 19 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. According to him, the plaintiff is an employee and as per Section 19 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, being an employer-employee dispute, the suit is barred under law. He would also submit that without any evidence, both the Courts below, have concurrently held that the plaintiff is entitled for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the defendant's land.
3/6
S.A.No.693 of 2021
are marked as exhibits which includes F.I.R. as well as the discharge summary to prove that the plaintiff had sustained injuries while doing the work entrusted to him by the defendant in the defendant's land and he had also sustained injuries while doing the said work which is evidenced from the discharge summary as well as the F.I.R.
4/6
S.A.No.693 of 2021
that Section 19 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 gets attracted
12.06.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No ab
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. 3. The Section officer, Record Section, High Court of Madras.
5/6
S.A.No.693 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,
ab
S.A.No.693 of 2021
12.06.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 19 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 bars a civil suit for compensation injuries sustained while doing unskilled manual work.
Whether a casual worker engaged for a specific task falls within the definition of an employee under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None citedReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Elumalai
Pandiyan
Abdul Quddose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Abdul Quddose
Parties & counsel
