THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE N.MALA W.P.No. 12193 of 2024 M/s.Hyundai Engineering Plastic India Pvt. Ltd., No.134, Vayalur Village, Thiruvallur – 602 105. ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The learned Joint Commissioner of Labour – II, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-6.

2.Tmt.Brindha ...Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.12.2023 in E.C.No.161 of 2022 on the file of the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.Abishek Murthy For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Purushothaman Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.R.Ramesh for R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award dated 19.12.2023, of the Joint Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, in E.C.No. 161 of 2022, granting compensation of Rs.15,44,625/- along with 12% interest per annum for the death of one Moorthy / the 2nd respondent's husband, in a motor accident, which occurred on 31.10.2020.

2. The respondent's husband was working as a Machine Operator in Production Department of the petitioner/Company. On 31.10.2020, while the respondent's husband was proceeding from his residence to the Company, he met with an accident, sustained grevious injuries and succumbed to the same on 06.11.2020. Hence, the 2nd respondent filed a petition for compensation before the Joint Commissioner of Labour – II under Section 22(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

3. Resisting the said claim, the petitioner herein, filed a counter raising several defences including that the respondent's husband violated the petitioner/Company's circular, instructing the employees to avail the Company transportation. The petitioner/Company by invoking the doctrine of added peril stated that it was not liable to pay compensation to the respondent's husband. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased employee in not following the standing orders of the petitioner/Company, and therefore, it ought to be construed that accident did not take place in the course of employment. The petitioner/Company further contended that pursuant to the death of the employee, the 2nd respondent, as wife, was paid the salary, gratuity, leave benefits and LTA in full and final settlement. On the basis of the above contentions, the petitioner/Company prayed for dismissal of the claim. 4. On consideration of the materials on record, the Joint Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai, allowed the petition directing the petitioner/Company to pay the compensation of Rs.15,44,625/- along with 12% interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/Company filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Company primarily contended that the petitioner/Company was not liable to pay the compensation claimed by the respondent on the doctrine of added peril. The learned counsel contended that the doctrine of added peril applied to the facts of the case, since the respondent's husband violated the Company's standing instructions to use the Company transportation.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent / wife of the deceased, submitted that the Labour Court had appreciated the entire facts in proper perspective and ordered compensation. He further submitted that since the Labour Court had exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law, this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the order of the Labour Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

8. The issue for determination is whether the petitioner/Company is liable to pay compensation to the 2nd respondent for the death of her husband in a motor accident that occurred on 31.10.2020.

9.The material facts are not disputed. The deceased, an employee of the petitioner/Co