IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI C.M.A.No.616 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.5102 of 2023 E.Pugalenthi ... Appellant / 2^nd respondent Vs.

1. Mala

2. Rosan Robert

3.Minor Reshma Jenifer (rep. by mother / natural guardian / 1^st respondent)

4. Vellaisamy ... Respondents 1 to 3 / petitioners

4threspondent / 1^st respondent PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to set aside the award passed in W.C.No.38 of 2019 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore, dated

04.11.2022.

For Appellant : Mr.B. Kumarasamy For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.S. Saravanan For Respondent No.4 : Mr. K. Balasubramaniyam

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Principal Employer / 2^nd respondent in the Workmen's compensation case against the Award, dated 04.11.2022 passed in W.C.No.38 of 2019 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore.

2. Parties are referred herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners / claimants, the husband of the first claimant Tr.Vinod was working as Centering Worker and on the relevant date, under the instructions of the first respondent he had been staying at Thokalti, Kothagiri and doing Centring work at the house of the 2^nd respondent, viz., Pughalenthi. On 05.07.2018 at about 3.15 pm, when the said Vinod was standing on the oil barrel and doing Centring work as no person was available to hold the oil barrel, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to Kothagiri Government Hospital. Thereafter, he was referred to Coimbatore Government Hospital for further treatment and on 07.07.2018 he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was not provided with sufficient safety equipment while being deployed for centring work. The respondents are responsible for the death of Tr.Vinod. At the relevant point of time, the deceased was 39 years of age and he was getting the daily wages at Rs.800/- per day and monthly income of Rs.20,800/- from the first respondent.

4. Per contra, on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the deceased Vinod was employed as a Watchman during day time by the 2^nd respondent and he did not know as to why he did stand on oil barrel. Only on the negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred. On the relevant day no centring work was undertaken. There is no employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the deceased. 5. Whereas on behalf of the second respondent it has been stated that the first respondent has taken the contract work and as per the Agreement, dated 15.11.2017 entered into between the first and second respondent that if any accident occurred in respect of any construction work, the first respondent is responsible for the same. The deceased did not know the centring work and because of his negligence he fell down from the oil barrel and died. Therefore, the second respondent is not responsible to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

6. At trial to substantiate the petition details, the first claimant has examined herself as PW.1 and six documents have been marked. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report; Ex.P3 is the copy of the postmortem certificate of Vinod; Ex.P6 is the School Transfer Certificate of the deceased Vinod. On the first respondent side neither oral evidence is let in nor any document was marked. Whereas on the side of the 2^nd respondent, 2^nd respondent has examined himself as RW1 and one Omprakash has been examined as RW2 and three documents have been marked. Ex.R2 is the copy of the Agreement entered into between the first and second respondent.

7. PW.1 has fled the proof affidavit and line with the details of her claim petition. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. The same reads that “vdJ mg;gh tpNdhj; nrd;lhpq;