Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 960
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
N. Thulasidasan – Petitioner
Versus
Madras Fertilizers Ltd. – Respondent
W.P. No. 8915 of 2010
Decided On : 18-02-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.M. Ramesh.
For the Respondent: Mr. B. Jayesh Dolia for M/s. Aiyar and Dolia.
Headnote:
Workmen Compensation Act - Section 3(1) - Sought for in this writ petition - Order to infuse fear psychosis in the minds - Quarrel - Whether petitioner is entitled to get the relief - whether the incident taken place is an industrial accident or not - Whether the Policy 29 would be helpful to Management or to the petitioner employee is question to be answered - Whether accident was taken place and bodily injury was sustained by an insured employee while he was in duty or in off-duty - Whether the injuries sustained by a workman by an unknown person would amount to an accident arising out and in course of employment - Whether the accident or incident taken place was an industrial accident for purpose of getting the benefits for employee - Whether a reasonable man can draw conclusion - Petitioner he was working in the respondent Organisation since April and ever since he joined in the respondent Organisation, he had been taking leading part in the trade union activities. At the time of filing this writ petition - Petitioner was working as Senior Secretary in the respondent Company. Since was Treasurer of Madras Fertilizers Staff Union, was the only representative body of all non-supervisory staff employed in the respondent company for the past 38 years - Union was started in the year 1972 and was recognised by respondent Management as sole collective bargaining agent - petitioner that, at one point of time due to alleged ill-will developed with Management in view of termination of the then Chief Executive one S. Muralidharan, they developed that ill-will against the members, office bearers of the union called MFSU and therefore, they have taken hasty decision of de-recognition of the said union and also encouraged rival union and its office bearers to reign in terror among non-supervisory staff in order to infuse fear psychosis in the minds of the said staff to join their rival union – Held, Incident were not categorised in the category of remote cause, certainly present incident taken place on 11.09.2009 can be said to be an incident taken place due to proximate cause - Therefore, if that logic, as quoted in the decision of Gauhati High Court in the aforesaid decision, is applied to the present facts of case, one can easily come to conclusion that, it is only because of the proximate cause and not by the remote cause that accident was taken place by analysing these decisions, as quoted by both sides as discussed Court has no hesitation to come to an irresistible conclusion that, accident taken place on during the working hours of petitioner at the industrial premises of the respondent Management, was only an industrial accident and therefore, what are all the benefits for which the petitioner is entitled to under Policy 29 called Accident Benefits Policy, he shall be entitled and accordingly, the said benefits shall be extended and disbursed to the petitioner - Respondent Management to treat period of absence of petitioner as duty period because of industrial accident taken place within the provisions of Policy 29 and consequential benefits such as leave with pay and allowances for entire treatment period - Writ Petition is ordered accordingly
ORDER :
1. The prayer sought herein is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the period of the petitioner's absence from 11.09.2009 to 04.11.2009 as “industrial accident” as defined under Clause 3.1.0 of Policy 29 and grant all the benefits, i.e. leave with pay and allowances for the entire treatment period, as stated under clause 5.1.1 of the said Policy, within the time frame.
2. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
(i) According to the petitioner, he was working in the respondent Organisation since April 1993 and ever since he joined in the respondent Organisation, he had been taking leading part in the trade union activities. At the time of filing this writ petition, the petitioner was working as Senior Secretary in the respondent Company. Since August 2009, he was Treasurer of Madras Fertilizers Staff Union, which was the only representative body of all the non-supervisory staff employed in the respondent company for the past 38 years. The said union was started in the year 1972 and was recognised by the respondent Management as sole collective bargaining agent.
(ii) While so, it is the further case of the petitioner that, at one point of time due to the alleged ill-will developed with the Management in view of the termination of the then Chief Executive one S. Muralidharan, they developed that ill-will against the members, office bearers of the union called MFSU and therefore, they have taken hasty decision of de-recognition of the said union and also encouraged rival union and its office bearers to reign in terror among the non-supervisory staff in order to infuse fear psychosis in the minds of the said staff to join their rival union.
(iii) With this background, according to the petitioner, on 11.09.2009 during the working time or duty time, he was summoned to come to the working place (Maintenance Planning Section) of MFSU's Ex-Treasurer one A.G. Joseph Victor, accordingly, the petitioner went there. When he entered in the Section room, he noticed that a gang of 15 persons under the leadership of one K. Jaya Shankar surrounded A.G. Joseph Victor and on seeing the petitioner, the gang turned on him shouting in high tone and in a fit of anger raising their voice. During that time, it seems that, there had been a wordy quarrel and therefore, out of such scuffle, the said Jaya Shankar pulled the neck down of the petitioner and traded blows at the backside of neck indiscriminately, result of which, he felt giddiness, numbness of both upper limbs and fell down unconsciously and later on, after taking first aid at the factory premises, he was admitted in a private hospital viz. Sugam Hospital, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai, where, after diagnosis it was found that, fracture of C3 and C5 cervical spine. With the result, he had to undergo medical treatment for 55 days and in respect of the said incident, the petitioner had given a complaint with the respondent Management as well as Manali Police, where, the Police have registered a case and the same is pending investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner had given representation on various dates i.e. on 06.10.2009, 16.11.2009, 24.11.2009 and 15.03.2010 to the respondent Management to grant accident leave as defined under Clause 3.1.0 of Policy 29 and to grant all benefits as defined in Clause 5.1.1 of the said Policy 29. However, the respondent has not taken any steps to pass orders on the plea raised by the petitioner, therefore, in order to get the said relief, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid prayer.
3. I have heard Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, the accident that was taken place on 11.09.2009 is purely an industrial accident. Therefore, since the petitioner had suffered injuries and he had to take medical treatment as an inpatient as well as outpatient for 55 days, the said period of 55 days shall be
