Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Raymond Showroom – Appellant
Versus
Sekar – Respondent
CMA No. 1927 of 2022, CMP No. 14272 of 2022
Decided On : 29-08-2024
Compensation - Workmen Compensation Act - Sections 2(e), 2(1)(d) - The court analyzed the employer-employee relationship and the liability for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, concluding that the second opposite party was not liable as there was no direct employment relationship.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant's son died from electrocution while working on an AC unit at the second opposite party's premises. The applicant sought compensation, claiming an employer-employee relationship existed between the deceased and both opposite parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was employed by the first opposite party and sustained injuries in the course of employment. However, it ruled that the second opposite party was not liable for compensation as no direct employment relationship existed.
Issues: Whether the second opposite party qualifies as an employer under the Workmen Compensation Act, whether an employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the accident, and whether the applicant is a dependent of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the second opposite party did not have an employer-employee relationship with the deceased, thus not liable for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act.
Result: The appeal was partly allowed; the second opposite party was not liable under the Workmen Compensation Act but was directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for negligence.
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workment Compensation Act, 1923, praying to set aside the order made in E.C. No. 107 of 2018, dated 20.07.2022 on the file of Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Joint Commissioner of Labour-1) Teynampet, Chennai.
1. Feeling aggrieved with the Order dated July 20, 2022 passed by ‘the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Joint Commissioner of Labour-1) Teynampet, Chennai’ [henceforth 'Commissioner’ for brevity] in E.C. No. 107 of 2018, the second respondent therein, namely Raymond Showroom, has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array before the Commissioner.
Applicant’s case
3. It is the case of the applicant that the deceased - Thiagarajan is his younger son and he has been working as a employee under the first opposite party. The 1st opposite party carrying on his business of Air Conditioner (AC) service in and around Chennai by engaging the applicant’s son - Thiagarajan as helper to carry out AC Services.
3.1. While so, on February 17, 2018, 1st opposite party had taken the applicant’s son - Thiagarajan to do AC services at the place of the 2nd opposite party. On the same day at about 07.20 p.m., there was a phone call from the 1st opposite party to his elder son - Parthiban that his younger son -Thiagarajan was electrocuted while doing AC services in the place of the 2nd opposite party and was admitted in Kalyani Hospital, Mylapore, Chennai. Subsequently, he was shifted to Rajeev Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai for further treatment. Later, his son passed away on February 27, 2018. Police complaint was registered under Crime No. 141/18 on the file of Mylapore Police Station on February 27, 2018. According to the applicant, the deceased passed away in and out of the course of employment. Therefore, he filed a petition praying to award a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) for the death of his son against the opposite parties.
1st Opposite Party’s case
4. The first opposite party filed counter statement denying the allegations levelled against them by the applicant. The first opposite party denied the allegation that the deceased has been working as an employee under 1st opposite party. Stating so, the first opposite party sought to dismiss the application filed by the applicant seeking compensation.
2nd Opposite Party’s case
5. The second opposite party filed counter denying the allegations made by the applicant against them. The second opposite party asserted that there is no relation/regular contract to do the AC service between them and the first opposite party. Further, they have no knowledge as to whether the deceased have visited the second opposite party’s showroom for AC Service. Further, all its employees are insured and the applicant’s son is not coming under its employee category. The second opposite party is not liable for any compensation if any untoward incident happens to anyone working under the first opposite party. Thus, it sought to dismiss the application filed by the applicant.
6. Before the Commisioner, on the side of the applicant, the applicant was examined as PW-1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.4 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, neither witnesses were examined nor documents were marked.
7. The Commissioner framed the following points for determination:
(ii) What is the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the dependents of the deceased as per Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1923?
(iii) Which opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased?”
(Translated from Tamil)
8. The Commissioner after analyzing the oral and documentary evide
The court established that an employer-employee relationship must exist for liability under the Workmen Compensation Act, and negligence can lead to tort liability even without such a relationship.
Compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act requires proving an employer-employee relationship, which was not established, leading to the dismissal of the claim.
The absence of a written appointment letter does not negate the existence of an employer-employee relationship under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, as long as the relationship can be establis....
The principal employer is liable for compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, even if the employee was engaged through a contractor, ensuring protection for workers.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the employer-employee relationship and the entitlement to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The entitlement of claimants to receive interest on the compensation amount from the date of the accident and the application of established principles relating to the payment of interest on money cl....
A temporary employment relationship can be established under the Employees’ Compensation Act without a formal contract, relying on circumstantial evidence and admissions.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'arising out of and in the course of employment' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the emphasis on a liberal....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
