Dismissed¶39

M/S.Mano Traders v. N.Poongothai

Madras HC12 Mar 2026CRP/2362/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, C.R.P No. 2362 of 2024, M. Dhandapani J., decided 12-03-2026. Employer's revision against dismissal of I.A. No. 52 of 2023 in E.C. No. 3 of 2020 (Employees Compensation Commissioner, Coimbatore) seeking setting aside of award dated 20.04.2023 under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 S. 22(7) proceedings for death of Senthamizhan in 17.02.2019 crane accident. Held: award passed on merits, not ex parte; remedy against award is appeal, not interlocutory application; interim stay vacated for failure to deposit Rs.4,54,280/-; no valid insurance between R3 and R5 (New India Assurance). Dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

After analysing the entire evidence, the Labour Court passed the Award against the petitioner, the accident having admittedly taken place at the petitioner's site. ¶39

M/S.Mano Traders Vs N.Poongothai — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRP No. 2362 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P No. 2362 of 2024

¶7

M/s.Mano Traders Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr.Manoharan, Chandrapuram, Sultanpet, Coimbatore-641 669.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

N.Poongothai W/o. P.Nanjuran, No. 588 Killiyanur, Anumandpuram, Needamangalam, Tiruvarur District.

¶11

P.Nanjuran S/o. Pottukannu, No. 588 Killiyanur, Anumandpuram, Needamangalam, Tiruvarur District.

¶12

S.Kannan Proprietor of Kannan Welding Works Fabrication, Gopalpatti, Natham Tlauk, Dindugal District.

¶13

P.Sampath Kumar No. 3/165, Karanmapettai, Kangeyampalyam, Palladam Road, Sulur, Coimbatore.

¶14

The New India Assurance Company Ltd No. 594, Opplic Towers, D.P.Road, Opp to Savitha Hotel Bus Stand, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 002.

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

__________ Page1 of 7

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRP No. 2362 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER:

¶20

PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A. No. 52 of 2023 in E.C. No. 3 of 2020 on the file of the Employees Compensation Commissioner/ Labour Joint Commissioner, Coimbatore, dated 05.03.2024 and allow this revision.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr. B. Gopalakrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Saravanan for R1 and R2 Mr. C. Johnson for R5 R4 – No appearance R3 – Not ready notice

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in I.A. No. 52 of 2023 in E.C. No. 3 of 2020 on the file of the Employees Compensation Commissioner/ Labour Joint Commissioner, Coimbatore, dated 05.03.2024 and to allow this revision.

¶24

__________ Page2 of 7

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

CRP No. 2362 of 2024

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the first respondent in E.C.No.3 of 2020. The deceased, Senthamizhan was engaged by the 3^rd respondent to complete a fabrication job of slabs and was paid wages to his workers. The petitioner identified the crane operator to provide support services to the 3^rd respondent, but, the petitioner did not have any supervisor control over the crane operator. In fact, the said Senthamizhan is an employee of the 3^rd respondent, who was subsequently, engaged by the petitioner and on 17.02.2019, while the petitioner was not on site, an accident occurred due to carelessness of the crane operator, resulting in death. After the death, the parents of the said Senthamizhan, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have filed a claim petition in E.C.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Section 22(7) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. Although the petitioner received notice, he believed the crane was insured with the 4^th respondent insurance company and that there was no liability, so he did not appear before the Labour Court.

¶28

However, in the absence of the insurance police and since the accident took place at the petitioner’s site, the Labour Court fastened the entire liability

¶29

Page3 of 7

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

CRP No. 2362 of 2024

¶32

against the petitioner vide order dated 20.04.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.52 of 2023 to set aside the ex parte order. However, the same was dismissed on the grounds that it was not an ex parte order, but rather an order on merits, making the filing of an Interlocutory Application unsustainable. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although notice was received by the petitioner, he was unable to approach counsel to conduct the case before the Labour Court. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, which was subsequently dismissed. Hence, he prayed for appropriate orders.

¶34

Upon perusal of the entire records, it is seen that while entertaining the Civil Revision Petition, this Court granted an interim stay on the condition that the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs.4,54,280/- to the credit of E.C.No.3 of 2020. However, the said conditional order was not complied with and the stay order was therefore vacated by this Court. It is further seen that there is no valid insurance between the 3^rd respondent and the 5^th respondent.

¶35

Page4 of 7

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

CRP No. 2362 of 2024

¶38

Admittedly, the accident took place at the petitioner’s site and after

¶39

analysing the entire evidence, the Labour Court passed as Award as against the petitioner. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the Award, he has to prefer an appeal. Filing an Interlocutory Application to set aside the Award passed is not sustainable. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

12-03-2026

¶41

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶42

Asi

¶43

¶44