JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workman Compensation Act, against the order and decretal order, dated 14.02.2011, made in W.C.No.148 of 2008, on the file of the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 14.02.2011, made in W.C.No.148 of 2008, on the file of the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner before the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul.

2. Brief substance of the petition filed by the petitioner, in W.C.No.148 of 2008, is as follows :

The petitioner is working in the Spinning Mill of the respondent for the past two years. The petitioner used to work as a loadman, whenever there is necessity. On 26.02.2008, on such direction, when the petitioner and co-workers were unloading the goods, without informing the petitioner and others, the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle and hence, the petitioner fell down from the lorry and the goods from the lorry fell upon the petitioner. The petitioner sustained injuries, he was taken to KMGH Hospital, then, he took treatment in Dindigul J.J.Hospital. The petitioner was earning Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner sustained 100% disability and now, he was not in a position to do any work. The petitioner sent a notice on 26.08.2008, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and filed this petition a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. Brief substance of the claim petition, in W.C.No.148 of 2008, is as follows :

It is wrong to state that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent. It is wrong to state that the petitioner was employed by the respondent on 26.02.2008. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner has to prove the same. The injuries were not proved by medical evidence. Injuries are denied.

4. On the side of the petitioner, 3 witnesses were examined and 6 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined and no document was marked. The Workmen Compensation Tribunal, after hearing both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.1,63,643/- as compensation for the petitioner. Against that order, the respondent in the claim petition has filed this Appeal on the following grounds:- The respondent failed to prove that he was a Workman in the appellant – Company. It is the duty of the claimant to prove that he was a Workman. The Tribunal wrongly shifted the burden on the appellant.

The respondent failed to produce any documents to show that he was disabled. The respondent failed to prove that there was employer and employee relationship between the appellant and the respondent. The injury was simple in nature. The respondent took treatment only as out-patient. Identity Card of the respondent was not filed to prove that he was an employee of the appellant. The award is excessive.

5. On the above grounds, this Court, by its order dated 20.10.2011, admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul, is not having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition in W.C.No.142 of 2008?

2. Whether the respondent will not come under the amplitude of “Workman” as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1952?

3. Whether the employer and employee relationship was not in subsistence between the appellant and the respondent at the material time?

4. Whether the respondent had sustained injuries during the course of his employment under the appellant?

5. Whether the tribunal is not correct in awarding compensation of Rs.1,63,643/- for the simple injuries sustained by the respondent, in the alleged accident occurred during the course of his employment?

Issue