The court mandated compensation for manual scavenging deaths, emphasizing societal responsibility and adherence to Supreme Court directives on compensation amounts.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in I.A. No. 108 of 2009 in W.C. No. 29 of 2002 pending on the file of the first respondent quash the order dated 10.11.2009 and direct the first respondent to dispose W.C. No. 29 of 2002 on merits.

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order made in I.A. No. 108 of 2009 in W.C. No. 29 of 2002, which dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.

2. The fourth respondent herein, the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, is the Authority that looks after establishing and maintaining the drainage system in the City of Chennai. The third respondent Corporation is the local body that administers the City of Chennai. While so, one Selvam, the second respondent in the Writ Petition, is employed as a contractor by the fourth respondent to supply labour and to carry out maintenance works. While so, he was said to have brought in one Sridhar, aged about 22 years, in the year 2000 to work on his various projects. Under the part of the contract work for clearing the block/choking of the underground sewer, the said Sridhar was employed without any protective gear as a manual scavenger. Since he had not come out for a long time, information was given to the Police and the Fire Service, who came and found that he had died and took the body out. A case was also registered in Cr. No. 703/2000 and there can be no doubt whatsoever that the said Sridhar died while he was employed as a manual scavenger when he was sent inside the underground sewer without any protective gear.

3. In that scenario, the father of the deceased, namely Kannaiyan had filed the Workman compensation claim before the first respondent namely Deputy Commissioner of Labour Workman Compensation in W.C. No. 29 of 2002. However, he was not present for the hearing in the year 2007 when the matter was taken up five years after the filing of the case. Therefore, the matter was dismissed for default. In the year 2008, an application was filed for restoration of the case and it was restored. Again on 27.11.2008, the matter was dismissed for default. Again the matter was restored to the file. Once again, the matter was dismissed for default and therefore, the present petition is filed with the petition for condonation of delay in filing the restore application. The first respondent found that repeatedly the matter had been dismissed for default and therefore, finding no merits in the petition, dismissed the Interlocutory Application as against which the Writ Petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a case of manual scavenging and the society is guilty of having let the said Mr. Sridhar perform manual scavenging and therefore, the approach of the first respondent Deputy Labour Commissioner in dismissing the case for default is unwarranted. When the petition is filed under Labour Welfare Legislation, the approach of dismissing it as if is a commercial civil suit is incorrect in law. He would further submit that the father and the mother also died and one of the sisters also died and the plight of the family was not considered. Even when the father was alive, he was sick and ailing and therefore he could not follow up on the issue. It could also be seen that when the matter was filed in the year 2002, the same was also kept pending till the year 2007. When the parties hail from rural areas and suddenly after five years the matter was taken up and dismissed for default, a lenient view should be taken in the matters of restoration of the petition. In any event, now we are in the year 2024 and now instead of remanding the matter back, this Court itself can determine the compensation and direct the respondents to pay.

5. The said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the third respondent/Corporation on the ground that firs