Employer's liability for workmen's compensation arises immediately upon the accident, unaffected by subsequent property transfers.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter dated 07.09.2021 issued by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to relieve the petitioner Company from any claim that may be made against it with respect to the incident that had occurred on 0712.2003.

2. The issues that arise for consideration of this Court are (i) Whether the sixth respondent has a right to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which is now renamed as the Employees' Compensation Act from the property conveyed by the fifth respondent much before the Award?

(ii) Whether a subsequent buyer of the immovable property can be mulcted with liability to compensate for a claim arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

3. The above issues arise in the following circumstances:

(i) One Sangeetha, daughter of Chinnaraj, who was employed as labourer by M/s.Carrit Maron Company Private Limited/the fifth respondent herein, died while working in the Company Premises on 07.12.2003 in a fire accident. The Company was very much aware about the accident but had not cared to pay the compensation to the parents of the deceased Sangeetha.

(ii) Thereafter, Parvathi, mother of the deceased, Sangeetha, had filed a petition before the Labour Commissioner, Chennai, seeking compensation and after full trial, the Labour Commissioner had directed the Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,52,760/- together with 12% interest. However, the Company had not cared to comply with the orders.

Thereafter, the said Parvathy came to learn that the property originally belonging to the fifth respondent had been purchased by the petitioner herein. Meanwhile, the said Parvathy had filed W.P.No.4554 of 2015 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to collect the compensation amount from the Company by initiating revenue recovery proceedings. This Writ Petition was allowed on 01.03.2016 by issuing a direction to collect the amount deposited with the Commissioner of Labour.

(iii) In pursuance of this order, the Tahsildar, Hosur, had addressed letters to the petitioner to pay the said amount, however, no amount has been paid and the mother of the victim had filed yet another writ petition in W.P.No.4654 of 2021 seeking a direction to the Tahsildar to recover the amount. The said writ petition was disposed with a direction to the Authorities, to initiate the revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the compensation amount, they having failed in their statutory right. Pursuant to this, the impugned communication has been forwarded to the petitioner directing them to pay the compensation of Rs.4,52,760/- with interest through a Demand Draft to the mother of the victim within three days and the petitioner was warned about further action being initiated to collect the compensation amount. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus, however, the affidavit filed in support thereof has not submitted in the proper format and the grounds of challenge have not been separately set out. Therefore, this Court falls back on the arguments that have been advanced by the counsel, who appeared before this Court.

5. The sum and substance of the argument of the petitioner is that they are the subsequent purchasers and there is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the deceased workman and the accident had occurred much prior to the purchase of the land and Factory Unit by the petitioner Company. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is no way bound to comply with the award. The learned counsel appearing for th