Back
1998 Supreme(Mad) 476
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. DAVID CHRISTIAN
The Superintending Engineer, Tiruvanamalai Electricity System, North Arcot District
Versus
S. Kannaiyan & 2 others
C.M.A.No.35 of 1989
Decided On : 25-03-1998
M/s. V. Rengapashyani and D. Bhuvanasundaram, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. M. Ramamoorthy, Advocate for Respondents.
A father of a deceased workman who is gainfully employed and is getting a monthly income is not a 'dependent' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore not entitled to compensation.
Headnote:
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 2(1)(D) - DEPENDENCY - FATHER OF DECEASED WORKMAN NOT DEPENDENT ON EARNINGS OF DECEASED - NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased workman, Arasakumar, was employed as a helper by the contractor of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. While on duty, he got electrocuted and died. The applicant, the father of the deceased workman, filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the applicant was not a 'dependent' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore not entitled to any compensation. The court found that the applicant was gainfully employed and was getting a monthly income of Rs. 1,653. The court also found that the deceased workman was only a worker under a contractor of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for only on daily wages and that too a small sum of Rs 10 per day.
Issues: Whether the applicant was a 'dependent' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that only a widowed mother, minor son and unmarried daughter alone are entitled as a matter of right to claim compensation without proving their dependency on the late workman. The other relations, namely a parent other than the widowed mother, brothers and sisters will have to prove their dependency before claiming compensation. Therefore, the present claimant, who is the father of late workman gainfully employed and who is getting monthly income of Rs 1, 653 is not at all a dependent on the late workman and therefore not entitled to compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was allowed and the claim petition was dismissed.
1. Appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Madras in W.C.No.84 of 1987, dated 16. 1988.
2. The first opposite party, namely the Superintending Engineer, Thiruvanamalai Electricity System, North Arcot District, is the appellant.
3. One B.Kannaiyan has filed the application for compensation alleging that late Arasakumar is the son of the applicant, who was employed under a contractor of first opposite party, namely the Superintending Engineer, Thiruvanamalai Electricity System, Thiruvanamalai, that on 19. 1983 while the workman was on duty and was doing the work of erection of poles he got electrocuted and died as a result of the injuries sustained during the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment of the work man, that he died on that day itself, that the applicant is therefore entitled to get compensation as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, that the late workman was being paid a sum of Rs.20 per day, that he was 20 years old, that he was helping the applicant to maintain there family, that the applicant is therefore a dependent and that therefore he is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000.
4. The claim has been laid against (1) Superintending Engineer, Thiruvanamalai Electricity System, North Arcot District; and (2) Vijayakumar, contractor of the first opposite party; and (3) Regional Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vellore.
5. The first opposite party, namely the Superintending Engineer, filed a counter contending that the applicant is not a dependent within the meaning of the Act, that the applicant is working as a foreman in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board itself, that he is getting a salary of Rs.1, 653 per month, that it is false to state that late Arasakumar was employed under the first opposite party, that the first opposite party was not aware as to whether Arasakumar was employed by its contractor, that any how there was an agreement between the contractor and the opposite party under which the compensation payable to a workman is to be paid only by the contractor and not by the Board, that Vijayakumar, contractor, was employed to carry out certain line works in Kilpannatur, Sub Division of the Electricity Board, that the deceased has not taken precautionary measures which seems to have been resulted in his death, that anyhow the contractor as per the agreement is liable to pay compensation payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, that if the first opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the applicant, it is entitled to realise the same from the contractor and that the claim against this opposite party may be dismissed.
6. The second opposite party filed a counter stating that late workman Arasakumar was employed by him for executing the contract obtained from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, that the work was carried out for and behalf of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, that the Electricity Board alone is liable to pay the compensation, and that the claim may be dismissed against him.
7. The third opposite party was impleaded because the first opposite party also pleaded that he has no power to grant the compensation exceeding a sum of Rs.25,000.
8. The Commissioner for workmen’s compensation after considering the submissions made on behalf of both sides, finally passed an order awarding a sum of Rs. 19, 200 as compensation payable by the first opposite party, namely the Superintending Engineer, Thiruvanamalai Electricity System, Thiruvanamalai, North Arcot District.
9. Aggrieved at the said order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation the first opposite party, namely the Superintending Engineer, Thiruvanamalai Electricity System, Thiruvanamalai, North Arcot District, has come with this appeal.
10. The point for consideration is:
Whether the order passed by the commissioner for workmen’s compensation is liable to be set aside
