JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs with interest to the petitioners towards compensation for the death of M.Kamalakannan in the accident caused by the container handling crane owned by the second respondent insured with the third respondent in the course of his employment in the container terminal premises of the second respondent.)

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs with interest to the petitioners towards compensation for the death of Mr.M.Kamalakannan in the accident caused by the container handling crane owned by the second respondent insured with the third respondent in the course of his employment in the container terminal premises of the second respondent.

2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of late Mr.M.Kamalakannan, who was working as a Clearing Assistant under the fourth respondent-Private Company. The employment of the husband of the first petitioner-wife was made through the fifth respondent. On 23.07.2014, the said Mr.M.Kamalakannan went to attend the duty. He sustained serious injuries in an accident occurred due to rash handling and driving of Crane and died on 23.07.2014. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent handling and driving of the vehicle/Crane owned by the second respondent in the Container Terminal Premises.

3. It is stated that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month from his employment.

4. When the writ petition was taken up for final hearing, this Court raised an objection in view of the fact that the deceased was employed by the fourth respondent through the fifth respondent. The Crane, which caused the death of the labour, belonged to the second respondent. The accident occurred in the Container Terminal Premises. Thus, the petitioners ought to have approached the Competent Authority under the Workmen Compensation Act or to file an accident claim before the appropriate Forum. Contrarily, the petitioners were advised to file the present writ petition.

5. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, who is an illiterate. The petitioners 2 and 3 were minors during the relevant point of time. The petitioners 4 and 5 were the parents of the deceased aged more than 70 years. Under these circumstances, the petitioners were not aware of the illegal implications regarding the entertainability of the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The writ petition is pending for about five years. When it is taken up for final hearing, this Court formed an opinion that driving these poor petitioners to the Competent Authorities under the Workmen Compensation Act, at this length of time would cause greater hardship and further the issue will be prolonged and protracted the right of the parties in the near future cannot be crystallised.

7. It is unfortunate that during the pendency of this writ petition, the first petitioner (wife of the labour-deceased husband) was also died and further the fourth petitioner (father of the deceased) was also died. Thus, the two young male children were left in lurch.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that one another son K.Prajeeth is mentally unsound and studying in a Special School. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to take up the writ petition for the purpose of determining the rights of the parties.

9. In such circumstances, the High Court is empowered to entertain the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the power conferred is also emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India and others [(2020) 13 SCC 285], wherein in paragraphs 11 and 13, it has been held