This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the order dated 08.08.2011 made in W.C.No.133 of 2008, on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai.
2. It is a case of fatal accident took place on 29.11.2003. When the deceased was white washing the pump room belonged to the third respondent, due to electrification, he died. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-p.m., at the time of accident. The legal heirs of the deceased viz., his wife and children filed a petition under Workmen Compensation Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai in W.C.No.133 of 2008, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, they denied the employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the third respondent and the deceased did not come under the definition of Workman under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation for his death.
4. Before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai, on the side of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and ten documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked and on the side of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked.
5. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, after discussing the evidence and documents on record, reached the conclusion that the accident was occurred at the time of employment and at the time of accident, the deceased was working for the appellant/third respondent and directed the appellant/third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,51,080/- as compensation to the claimants as per the following formula:
Against which, the appellant/third respondent has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the appellant has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration: ?1. Whether the findings of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation is sustainable in law in fixing the liability when the deceased was not coming within the purview of workman as defined under
Section 2(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923?
2. Whether the finding of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation in fixing the liability on the appellant herein is sustainable between the deceased and the appellant?
3. Whether the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to pay compensation by the appellant by invoking
Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is sustainable in law??
7. The only main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the liability on the appellant as a principal employer and hence, he seeks interference of this Court in the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants would submit that the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai, based on the oral and documentary evidences, has rightly fixed the liability on the appellant and awarded a just compensation and hence, the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai deserves no interference and hence, this appeal has to be dismissed.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
10. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai, after discussing elaborately, has held as follows:
?14. nkw;fz;l Mtzq;fs; kw;Wk; rhl;rpapd; mog;gilapy; ,we;jth; 3tJ vjph;kDjhuh; ntiyf;fhf> 1tJ vjh;kDjhuh; vLj;Js;s fhz;ouhf;l; gzpg[hpa[k; nghJ gzpapd; fhuzkhf kpd;tpgj;J Vw;gl;L ,we;Js;shh; vd;Wk;> ,t;tHf;fpd; 3tJ vjph;kDjhuh; Kjd;ik ntiyaspg;gth; vd;Wk;> 1tJ vjph;kDjhuh; fhz;ouhf;lh; vd;Wk; Kot[ bra;fpnwd;.
Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act reads as follows:
12.Contracting ? (1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the workman under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.
(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, (or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the workman could have recovered compensation,) and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnify shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.?
11. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner and the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act clearly shows that the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai has discussed in detail and rightly found that at the time of accident, the deceased was working for the appellant/ third respondent who is the principal employer and he has to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai and the same does not require interference at the hands of this Court. The Substantial Questions of Law are answered accordingly.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 02.05.2012 passed in W.C.No.133 of 2008 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai is hereby confirmed. The claimants/ respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai to the credit of W.C.No.133 of 2008. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To,
1. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.