The court affirmed the employer-employee relationship necessary for compensation claims under the Workman Compensation Act.

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has be en preferred by the e mployer against the order dated 29.08.2023 passed in EC No.2 of 20 16 by the Joint Com missioner of Labour, Tirunelveli.

2.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3.The claimant herein filed a claim petition before the above stated authority on the ground that he sustained injury during the course of e mployment and claimed co mpensation of Rs.4,44,008/-.

4.Upon consideration, the Workman Compensation Authority has fixed the co mpensation of Rs.1,69,070/- for m edical expenses, a sum of Rs.1,82,2 15/-, in all, a sum of Rs.3,51,285/- was awarded as co mpensation.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant would vehe m ently argue that there is no e mployer and e mployee relationship. Therefore, the claim petition ought to have be en dismissed.

6.It has co m e on record through the evidence of P.W.1 that on

05.10.20 15 at about 1 0.00 a.m when he was working as a coolie at Aathi Fly Ash Bricks Company, Kattalankulam, Thoothukudi and he was engaged in fencing work. While he along with another person w ere carrying a pipe, he slipped down the pipe and he also lost his balance and fell on the mixture m achine. Due to the said impact, he suffered serious injuries on his hand and hip and he was not in a position to walk. He was admitted at Thoothukudi Lakshmi Poly Clinic by the co-workers Santhanakumar and Subramanian along with his co mpany owner Yesuvadiyan. He took treatment as inpatient from 05.10.20 15 to 24.10.20 15.

7.Further m ore, the aforesaid details have be en corroborated by Ex.P.1-FIR. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the details of Ex.P.1-FIR, it is pellucid that when the claimant was working in the respondent's bricks co mpany, he m et with an accident and he sustained injuries, obviously during the course of e mployment. Therefore, it should not lie in the m outh of the e mployer that there is no e mployer and e mployee relationship between the claimant and the respondent. The workman co mpensation authority has rejected the defence put-forth by the e mployer and co mpensation was granted in favour of the claimant herein.

8.I do not find any good reason to disturb the findings of the Workman Compensation Authority as it does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity.

9.Based on the aforesaid discussions and observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

3 1.0 1.2025 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet::Yes/No To

1.The Joint Com missioner of Labour, Tirunelveli.

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R. KALAIMATHI ,J.

Ns and C.M.P(MD)No.12229 of 2024

31.01.2025