The main legal point established in the judgment is the confirmation of an employer-employee relationship under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the interpretation of the definition of an accident arising out of/in the course of employment, leading to the award of compensation and interest.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 14.03.2011 passed in W.C.No.161 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai.)

1. Mr.Sakthivel, the Managing Director / first respondent before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, is the appellant herein. Challenging the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen compensation, Madurai, in W.C.No.161 of 2005 dated 14.03.2011, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The respondents/claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased, namely, Veerasingam and the said deceased was Sugarcane cutting labour leader of the appellant/sugar factory, when he was engaged as labourer by the appellant/sugar factory for cutting the sugarcane, which has to be supplied to the sugar factory. While cutting the sugarcane, he died by snake bite. Since the appellant/first respondent has not paid the compensation due and payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the legal heirs have filed the claim petition before the Commissioner in W.C.No.161 of 2005 and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(i) The appellant is a Sugar Mill at Padamathur, Sivagangai District. As per the practice in the industry including the appellant factory, the Ryots enter into a contract with the Sugar Factory for supply of sugarcane. Such Ryots may also act as Harvesting Gang Leaders undertaking the work of cutting sugarcane in the sugar fields of third parties. These Gang Leaders' employ required manpower for cutting sugarcane. These Gang Leaders are registered with the petitioner Factory and they are issued identity cards, to ensure their identity for receiving payments in respect of cutting job done by them.

(ii) The Ryots are not employees of the appellant. Similarly, the Gang leaders are also not employees of the appellant. The Ryots and Gang Leaders are involved in plantation and cutting of sugarcane which normally takes 11 months to 13 months.

(iii) One Veerasingam, a Ryot, residing at Avarangadu Village, Manamadurai, Taluk, situated about 10 to 15 KMs away from the petitioner's factory, was also acting as a Gang Leader.

(iv) During the season commencing from October, 2003 to September, 2004, the appellant entered into an agreement with the said Veerasingam on 28th March, 2003. As per the said agreement, the said Veerasingam agreed to give sugarcane to the appellant in respect of Survey No.280/2, Maranadu Village. The said land belonged to Veeramuthu, which had been leased to the said Veerasingam.

(v) On 24.02.2004, while Veerasingam was cutting sugarcane in his field in Survey No.280/2, Maranadu Village, unfortunately, he was bitten by a poisonous snake. It would also appear that in spite of medical treatment, he expired on 27.02.2004.

(vi) The first respondent herein, the wife of deceased Veera singam and her children filed an application under Section 15 of the W.C. Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, stating that her husband was employed as contract labour by the petitioner; that his duty was cutting sugarcane in various fields and send them to the petitoner Factory; that he was the President of the Contract Labour Union; that on 24.02.2004, in pursuing his duty of cutting of sugarcane to the petitioner Factory, he was bitten by a poisonous snake in the sugar filed and that he expired on 27.02.2004.

(vii) The deceased was an employee of the petitioner and he died due to the accident in the course of and arising out of empolyment with the petitioner. Then, the application was numbered as W.C.No.161 of 2005.

(xiii) The appellant filed a counter statment contending that the deceased Veerasignam was one of the ryots who supplied sugarcane to the appellant; that he was also acting as a Gang Leader undertaking cutting of the su