Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2576
2011 (3) LW 946, 2011 (2) TNMAC 112
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Bishop & Another
Versus
Mariappan & Others
C.M.A. Nos. 2234 to 2245 of 2006 & CONT.P.No.1668 of 2007
Decided on : 07-06-2011
For the Appellants:T.R. Sundaram, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1 - V.K. Rajagopalan, Government, R. Murali, Government Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the applicability of the Act to construction workers.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation Act - Employer Liability - Sections 30, 2(c), 12 - The judgment discusses the liability of the appellants as employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It highlights the interpretation of the term 'employer' under Section 2(c) and the applicability of the Act to construction workers. The court's decision is influenced by the provisions of the Act and the evidence presented, holding the appellants liable to pay compensation to the workers.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a construction project where workers were injured due to a building collapse. The workers filed for compensation, and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation found the appellants liable to pay compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the appellants, upholding the Commissioner's decision that the appellants are liable to pay compensation to the injured workers.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the appellants as employers under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the applicability of the Act to construction workers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellants were liable as employers under the Act and upheld the Commissioner's decision to award compensation to the workers.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were dismissed, affirming the liability of the appellants to pay compensation to the injured workers. The Contempt Petition against the Commissioner for alleged disobedience was also dismissed.
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Contempt Petition came to be listed under the caption "specially ordered" vide order dated 21.04.2011 by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
2. Heard Mr.T.R.Sundaram, learned counsel for the appellants in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and for the petitioner in Cont.P.No.1668 of 2007 and Mr.T.S.Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the caveators in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Mr.R.Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent contemnor in the contempt petition.
3. In view of the fact that all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arose out of the orders passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Chennai - 6, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour I, Chennai) in various W.C. Cases, which arose out of the same incident, which occurred on 09.05.2002, they were heard together and a common judgment is passed. The contempt petition arose out of the order dated 01.08.2006 passed in M.P.No.2 of 2006 in C.M.A.No.2234 of 2006 and the same was also tagged along with the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. Since it was felt that the outcome of the various Civil Miscellaneous Appeals will decide the fate of the contempt, arguments were heard in all the petitions.
4. The appellants are the Bishop of C.S.I. Diocese of Vellore and the Presbyter Incharge of C.S.I. Katpadi Pastorate at Katpadi, Vellore. The 12 Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arose out of the order dated 22.03.2006 passed in W.C.Nos.301 of 2002, 4 of 2003, 5 of 2003, 6 of 2003, 271 of 2002, 272 of 2002, 273 of 2002, 274 of 2002, 275 of 2002, 300 of 2002, 302 of 2002 and 172 of 2003 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation I, Chennai - 6 (Deputy Commissioner of Labour I, Chennai-6). The appeals were filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (shortly "the Act"). Proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act clearly states that no appeal was shall lie against any order, unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. But however, when the matters were admitted on 01.08.2006, no question of law has been framed by this Court. In the memorandum of appeals, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the following questions of law arose for consideration:-
"Substantial Question of Law involved in this appeal
1) Whether the provisions of W.C.Act apply to the Appellants 1 and 2, and can they be termed as "Employer" in accordance with Sec. 2(c) of the W.C. Act.
2) Is not the 2nd Respondent liable to answer the claim of the 1st respondent, as construction work is not a trade and business of the Appellants 1 and 2 within the meaning of Sec.12 of the W.C.Act.
3) Is the claim of the 1st Respondent maintainable against Appellants 1 and 2 who are neither "Employer" nor "Principal Employer" to the 1st Respondent."
But there is no indication in the order sheet that this Court had agreed with those questions of law. Those draft questions of law are provided by the learned counsel for the appellants.
5. The facts leading to the filing of these Civil Miscellaneous appeals are as follows:-
(a) The second respondent in these appeals is an Architect by profession and having his office at Chennai. The appellants, in order to execute a project, including building of new Church comprising of ground and floors and also a compound wall in the land owned by them at Katpadi, Vellore, entered into an agreement. When the project was undertaken, the contesting respondents (caveators) were engaged as construction workers in the project at Katpadi - Chittoor Road, near C.S.I. Church.
(b) On 09.05.2002, during the course of their employment, while the centering work was progressing, the materials forming part of the centering work, fell down on the contesting respondents (caveators) and they suffered grievous injuries due to the falling of the roof of the Church constructed by the appellants 1 and 2. The construction workers namely the contesting respondents (caveators) suffered injuries, which required m
