AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren
The writ petition, in W.P. No. 23777 of 2009, has been filed by the petitioners herein, who are farmers owning agricultural lands in Kadampur
village. The petitioners had entrusted the work of deepening of a well in the agricultural land to one Kuppusamy chettiar. When the well was being
deepened, one Venkatesan, son of the third and the fourth respondents, who was a stranger, had come there and he was talking to the workers,
who were involved in the deepening of the well. He had not been employed, either by the petitioners or by Kuppusamy chettiar. While talking to
the workers, he had fallen down and died due to heart attack. The third and fourth respondents, the parents of Venkatesan, had filed an
application before the second respondent, under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, in W.C.No.190 of 2003, seeking compensation
against the petitioners alleging that their son, namely, Venkatesan, who was employed by the petitioners, had died due to electric shock. Based on
the claim made by the third and the fourth respondents, the second respondent had passed an order, on 20.9.2004, directing the petitioners to pay
a sum of Rs.4,23,829/-, for the death of Venkatesan. Subsequently, the petitioners had preferred an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.146 of
2006, on 10.4.2006, to re-open the case and to decide the matter, on merits, based on the available evidence. The third and the fourth
respondents, instead of contesting the matter, had filed an application, u/s 31 of the Workmen''s compensation Act, 1923, for the recovery of the
amount awarded as compensation. They had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.35423 of 2006, seeking a direction to implement
the order of the second respondent, dated 20.9.2004.
On 14.8.2007, this Court had passed an order directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application for the recovery
of the award amount, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, if there were no legal impediments to do so.
While so, on 29.11.2007, the second respondent had passed an order dismissing the claim of the third and the fourth respondents, in
W.C.No.190 of 2003, after considering the additional evidence adduced by the petitioners. Thereafter, the second respondent had passed an
order, on 30.11.2007, setting aside the order, dated 29.11.2007, citing the order of this Court, dated 14.8.2007, and directing the initiation of the
recovery proceedings. However, no notice had been issued to the petitioners before the order had been passed by the second respondent, on
30.11.2007. It is clear that the second respondent had passed the order, dated 30.11.2007, misconstruing the order passed by this Court, on
14.8.2007, in W.P.No.35423 of 2006. Based on the order passed by the second respondent, on 30.11.2007, the first respondent had initiated
revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioners, by an order, dated 8.6.2009. In such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the writ
petition, in W.P.No.23777 of 2009, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition, in W.P.No.20388 of 2011, had been filed by one P.Lakshmi, mother of Venkatesan, the fourth respondent, in
W.P.No.23777 of 2009. She had claimed that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Teynapet, Chennai, on 29.11.2007,
in W.C.No.190 of 2003, is arbitrary and void. The said authority does not have the power or jurisdiction to pass the said order dismissing the
claim for compensation, made in W.C.No.190 of 2003, after re-opening the case, based on the Interlocutory Application, in I.A.No.146 of 2007.
It had been further stated that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Teynapet, Chennai, ought not to have reversed its earlier order, on
20.9.2004, directing the payment of Rs.4,23,829/-, as compensation, for the death of Venkatesan. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that both the impugned
orders, dated 29.11.2007, and 8.6.2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Teynapet, Chennai, are liable to be set aside, as they
had been passed without sufficient opportunity having been given to the contesting parties. Further, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court
finds it appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Teynapet, Chennai, to reopen the case, in W.C.No.190 of 2003, and to pass
appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity to the contesting parties, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly.
No costs. Connected M.P. No. 2 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 are closed.