JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, against the final award dated 28th October, 2016, (received on 20.03.2017) passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Chennai in E.C.No.27 of 2015.)

1. The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the final award dated 28th October, 2016, (received on 20.03.2017) passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour -I), Chennai in E.C.No.27 of 2015.

2. The substantial question of law raised in the present civil miscellaneous appeal is that whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is right in passing the award in favour of the married daughter and major sons which is directly in violation of Section 2(d) of the Employees Compensation Act. The second question of law raised is that the deceased cleaner is none other than the husband of the owner of the vehicle which met with an accident. While so, the claimants could not able to establish that their father was working as a cleaner with their mother in a vehicle owned by their mother. In view of the relationship, it is contended that the case itself is concocted for the purpose of unjust enrichment by getting compensation.

3. The claim petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 4 under Section 10(1) and 4-A of Workmen Compensation Act on the ground that the deceased Mr.Chandrasekaran @ Chandrasekar was working as a cleaner cum coolie for about five years under the fifth respondent and the fifth respondent is none other than the wife of the deceased Chandrasekaran.

4. It is contended that the fifth respondent paid monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- to the deceased cleaner. On 08.01.2015, at about 11.00 hours, when the deceased Chandrasekaran was working as a cleaner cum coolie in the mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN 37 M 9689, met with an accident and the said chandrasekaran sustained grievous injury and died on 12.01.2015. The case was registered in Crime No.23 of 2015.

5. The appellant Insurance Company filed their objections mainly on the ground that the deceased Chandrasekaran was aged about 62 years and therefore, there is no probability of serving as cleaner in the mini lorry, more specifically, the vehicle is owned by his wife. Therefore, the application itself is filed for unlawful enrichment and is to be dismissed.

6. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issue with reference to the documents and evidence filed by the respective parties. The relationship between the owner of the vehicle as well as the deceased was not disputed by the parties before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Further, it is not disputed that the first respondent is the married daughter of the deceased and the fifth respondent and the respondents 2 to 4 are the major sons of the deceased and the fifth respondent. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour proceeded on the basis that the factum regarding the accident was established and therefore, the deceased is to be construed as an employee.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that undoubtedly the husband may be an employee with his own wife. However, such factum ought to be established through some evidence or documents. For example, in a private college, wife may be a Correspondent of the College and husband may be working as a Lecturer and if the appointment of Lecturer is proved by the competent Educational Authority, then it is a valid employment and certainly the husband in that case would be the employee of the wife who was holding the management. Thus, a mere relationship is no ground to deny compensation. However, the factum regarding employment ought to be established through acceptable evidence. Merely saying that the husband was working as a cleaner in a lorry owned by his wife and the husband at the time of accident was aged about 62 years and no proof has been filed, then it is very difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the employee emplo