Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.V.RAMANA
Galireddy P. - Appellant
Versus
Chinna Ramaswamy Goud - Respondent
Decided On : 11-08-00
Workmen s Compensation Act ( the Act , for brevity ) - Section 2 (1) (n) - Compensation claim - Workmen s compensation – This appeal is filed by the employer questioning the award dated passed by the Commissioner of Workmen s compensation and Assistant Commissioner of labour, II Circle, District - Legal heirs of one in this case, filed the above case claiming compensation of for the death of the deceased - It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working in the industrial concern belonging to the appellants herein, on monthly wages of While so, on the deceased was entrusted with the work of cleaning some powder, which gathered on the electric meter board fixed in the premises of the said industrial unit - While cleaning the Board, the deceased came into contact with a live electric wire, due to which he received shock and fell down - When he was taken to the government Hospital for treatment, the workman died - Hence, the claim - Counter was filed by the appellants herein contending that the deceased was engaged only on casual basis, that too intermittently, by paying him daily wages of and he is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act and that their organisation is not a factory as they engaged only four workmen in their organisation - It is, therefore, contended that there was no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the appellants and so the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation under the Act - Held, - Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that since there were only four persons employed in the unit on the date of accident, it cannot be treated as factory and so the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation for the death of the deceased in such factory - But, Court not inclined to attach any importance to this contention - Because in a case which is filed under the Workmen s compensation Act, what is relevant to be gone into is: (1) whether there is any employee and employer relationship; and (2) whether the accident took place during the course of employment or not – In so far as the first requirement is concerned, no doubt, the appellants denied the relationship of employee and employer , in which case, the onus is on the employer to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence - But, in this case, the appellants did not take any steps to establish the same by marking any documents or registers like muster rolls etc. , which were maintained by them at the relevant period -Therefore, in the absence of any proof, it must be presumed that there existed employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the appellants as on the date of accident – In so far as the second requirement is concerned, it is not the case of the appellants that the accident did not occur during the course of the employment - Thus, it must be held that the two requirements have been duly satisfied in this case - In such an event, it is wholly irrelevant to embark upon an enquiry as to whether how many workers were actually employed in the factory as on the date of accident - Therefore, this contention too is liable to be rejected - There are no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed - Respondents 1 and 2 shall be entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the amount of compensation deposited - No costs - Dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the employer questioning the award dated 31/07/1996 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen s compensation and Assistant Commissioner of labour, II Circle, Rangareddi District, in WC case No. 158 of 1993.
( 2 ) THE legal heirs of one Chinna mallesham Goud, deceased in this case, filed the above case claiming compensation of Rs. 87,980. 00 for the death of the deceased. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working in the industrial concern belonging to the appellants herein, on monthly wages of Rs. 1,100. 00 While so, on June 17, 1993, the deceased was entrusted with the work of cleaning some powder, which gathered on the electric meter board fixed in the premises of the said industrial unit. While cleaning the Board, the deceased came into contact with a live electric wire, due to which he received shock and fell down. When he was taken to the government Hospital for treatment, the workman died. Hence, the claim under the workmen s Compensation Act ( the Act , for brevity ).
( 3 ) COUNTER was filed by the appellants herein contending that the deceased was engaged only on casual basis, that too intermittently, by paying him daily wages of rs. 20/- and he is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act and that their organisation is not a factory as they engaged only four workmen in their organisation. It is, therefore, contended that there was no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and the appellants and so the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation under the Act.
( 4 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, enquiry was conducted before the authority wherein two witnesses were examined and two documents were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the appellants, one witness was examined and three documents were marked. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Commissioner held that the deceased is a workman . In regard to quantum of compensation, the Commissioner determined the age of the deceased as on the date of his death as 23 years and that he was earning a monthly wage of Rs. 910. 00 (26 days @ Rs. 35. 00 per day) and on that basis fixed compensation of Rs. 80,061. 00 and in all a sum of Rs. 80,521. 00 was awarded as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.
( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (1 ) (n) of the Act as he was engaged only on casual basis and not on permanent basis; that as on that day, the unit was being run only on trial basis and there was no manufacturing process carried on in their unit on the date of accident and that there were only four persons engaged in the said unit. It is, therefore, contended that the appellants unit cannot be termed as factory . It is also contended that the deceased workman was not engaged for the purpose of any trade or business so as to bring him within the purview of Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act and consequently the provisions of Workmen s Compensation Act cannot be made applicable in this case for the purpose of granting compensation to the claimants. It is also contended that the appellants are not the employers and the deceased is not a workman even under Schedule-II of the Act and, therefore, there was no employer and employee relationship between the appellants and the workman.
( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman supported the award contending that the award does not suffer from any serious legal infirmity and therefore no interference is warranted by this Court.
( 7 ) I have perused the award of the commissioner. The contentions, which are raised before this Court, were already raised before the Commissioner and they were answered by the Commissioner in the negative. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. It is settled law that in an appeal
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
