The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving the employer-employee relationship and the calculation of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, against the order dated 14.12.2017 made in W.C.No.55/2012 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Madurai.)

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.12.2017 made in W.C.No.55/2012 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Madurai.

2. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that on 22.10.2011 about 09.00 a.m., one Santhanam, husband of the 1st respondent, father of the respondents 2 to 4 and son of the 5th respondent, who on the fateful day was working under the appellant as a driver in a Tractor bearing registration No.TN-59-C-5565, was ploughing the field of the appellant, the said Tractor stuck in the mud and sand and got capsized, in which, Santhanam sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. For the death of Santhanam, the respondents/claimants filed W.C.No.55/2012 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, claiming compensation of Rs.3,68,340/-. Resisting the claim, the appellant filed counter denying the employer-employee relationship between him and the deceased and contended that the accident had not occurred during the course of employment and the deceased after the work drove the Tractor negligently, resultantly, the Tractor got capsized thereby he invited the accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation.

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side held that the deceased died during the course of employment under the appellant in his Tractor bearing registration No.TN-59-C-5565 and awarded compensation of Rs.5,71,257/-. Aggrieved by the above award, the appellant/employer has filed this appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:-

(a) Whether the learned Commissioner is right in holding that the deceased was an employee under the appellant when absolutely there is no material evidence to prove the same?

(b) Whether the burden of proof relating to the relationship of the employer and employee on the part of the claimants is discharged by the claimants?

(c) Whether the deceased was a workman under the definition of Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act?

(d) Whether the deceased as a farm worker exempted under the Workmen’s Compensation Act?

(e) Whether the accident has occurred during the course of employment?

(f) When the deceased was negligent and violating the working condition, whether he is entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act?

(g) Is it correct to rely upon a G.O. for Government servant by the learned Commissioner for fixing the wages which is against Section 5 of the Act?

(h) Is it correct to fix the monthly income at Rs.6,150/- when there is no proof of the same and in such a case, whether the Minimum Wages Act only applicable?

(i) Is it correct to award compensation more than that of the claim amount?

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that when there was no material evidence to prove that the deceased was an employee under the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ought not to have held that the deceased was the employee of the appellant. He further contended that except the FIR, no other evidence was produced to prove the employer-employee relationship and therefore, when the claimants have not discharged the burden of proof on their part, the learned Commissioner ought not to have shifted the burden on the appellant solely relying upon the FIR. Further, the learned Commissioner has failed to note that the accident had not occurred during the course of employment. It is also contended that the deceased was working under the appellant only for one day, as such, being the casual employee, he will not come within the purview of workman as per Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. On the quantum, the learned counsel would conten