Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3551
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH, J.
C. Arumugham @ Raj
Versus
Revathi & Others
C.M.A.No.435 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2012, 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided on: 08-10-2014
For the Appellant:R.G. Narendhiran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Prabhu, for S. Parthasarathy, Advocates.
Headnote:
Workmens Compensation Act, 1923- Section 2(1)(n) and 30(1) - Employees Insurance Act - Section 22 - Employees Compensation Act, 1923- Section 4(A) – Accident – Death during course of employment – Claiming compensation - Employed in construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of - While deceased was painting Wall of belonging to appellant he fell down and sustained grievous injuries in spite of best treatment given to him, he died - Since deceased had died in accident during course of employment, respondents/claimants filed a petition under Section 22 of State Employees Insurance Act r/w Section 4(A) of Act, 1923, as against owner of appellant claiming compensation - Whether deceased was working in Kalyana Mandapam or in house of appellant is totally immaterial after omission of Section 2(1)(n) of Act, 1923 - Held, A reading of said provision would show that the person employed in a construction of any building will come within meaning of employee as defined under Section 2(1)(dd) of Act, 1923 – Court opinion, since appellant has not complied with mandatory requirement as per Third Proviso to Section 30(1) of Act, 1923, on that ground also, appeal is liable to be dismissed and further, court find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal to make an interference in order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore - As per Section 30(1) of Act, 1923, deposit of award amount with interest within statutory period is mandatory and only if appellant satisfies requirement in filing appeal could be entertained - But here interest was not deposited by appellant - Civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.
1. This appeal has been filed as against the award dated 18.1.2012 made in W.C.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.7,97,600/-as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after 30 days from the date of accident, to the respondents herein, who are the legal heirs of deceased Madhu.
2. Respondents 1 to 3 are claimants before the Tribunal. They are wife, daughter and mother of the deceased Madhu respectively.
3. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal, that on 24.7.2010 at about 5.30 p.m., while the deceased Madhu was painting the Wall of C.M. Kalyana Mandapam belonging to the appellant herein, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Ramakrishna Hospital. In spite of the best treatment given to him, he died on 4.8.2010 at 21.15 hours. Since the deceased had died in the accident during the course of employment, the respondents/claimants filed a petition under Section 22 of the State Employees Insurance Act r/w Section 4(A) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, as against the owner of the C.M. Kalyana Mandapam viz., the appellant herein, claiming a sum of Rs.14,14,000/-as compensation.
4. The case of the respondents/claimants was resisted by the appellant herein by filing counter statement inter alia stating that it is false to state that the deceased Madhu had sustained injuries while he was doing the painting work in C.M. Kalyana Mandapam belonging to the appellant. The said statement was made by the respondents only to bring the case within the ambit of The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The actual fact is that the appellant herein was constructing a new house for his residential purpose, which is 300 feet away from C.M. Kalyana Mandapam. The deceased Madhu, who was a painting contractor, approached the appellant for painting contract and the painting work of the house was entrusted to the deceased Madhu on 22.7.2010. A total sum of Rs.25,000/-was fixed to complete the painting work at the house of the appellant and an advance of R.10,000/-was received by the deceased on the same day. The deceased employed three persons to do the painting work at the house of the appellant and he had only supervised the entire work by frequently visiting the place as a contractor. The deceased also used to work along with other employees. While so, on 24.7.2010, in order to complete the work, the deceased Madhu joined with the other workers and started to do the painting work. At that time, while he was climbing up a big stool, he fell down and suffered injuries. The appellant had admitted him in the hospital. But, on 4.8.2010, he had died. Suppressing the above materials facts, the respondents have filed the claim petition as if the deceased had died while he was doing the painting work in C.M. Kalyana Mandapam. As per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, a person doing work in a residential house cannot be termed as 'workman' and hence, the claimants cannot make a claim under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and only the workers, who are working in the areas specified in Schedule-II of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 alone are entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, in order to prove the claim, on the side of the respondents/claimants, the wife of the deceased Madhu examined herself as P.W.1 and 8 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8. On the side of the appellant, the appellant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R.1 and R.2.
6. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, after analysing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that though the appellant has claimed that the deceased was only a Contractor and not an employee, he has no
