Management of Annamalai University vs M. Venkatachalam and Another

S. Manikumar, J.—Being aggrieved by the Award, dated 25.5.1998, made in W.C. No. 101 of 1996, on the file of the Deputy

Commissioner of Labour/Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Chennai, the present appeal has been filed. According to the

respondent/claimant, he was employed as a Security Guard in Guard well Security Allied Service, from 1991 onwards. The Management of the

2nd respondent has deputed him to various places and from March'' 1993 onwards, he had worked as Security Guard in Annamalai University,

Directorate of Distance Education, Madras Study Centre. While he was functioning as Security Guard, on 6.11.1994, at 7.30 a.m., he met with an

accident and sustained a fracture in his leg. Immediately thereafter, he was admitted in Government Royapettah Hospital and treated as inpatient

between 6.11.1994 and 1.12.1994. The Doctor, who treated the respondent/claimant, has issued a disability Certificate, stating that he had

suffered 15% disablement. At the time of accident, he was drawing monthly wages of Rs. 1,031/-. In the abovesaid circumstances, he preferred a

claim petition under the Workmen''s Compensation Act for Rs. 24,000/-.

The 1st opposite party, Management of Annamalai University, appellant herein, has disputed the employment. They further submitted that the

1st respondent/claimant was not employed by them and therefore, no liability can be fastened on them. According to the University, the

Management of Guard well Security, alone was liable to pay compensation. As per the contract, executed between the Management of Annamalai

University and Guard well Security, the employer, viz., Guard well Security alone to pay compensation. For the abovesaid grounds, the University

has prayed for dismissal of the claim.

The Management of Guard well Security Services, has also opposed the claim petition, on the ground that the respondent/claimant had never

worked with them. It was also submitted that the Security Services run by one Subesh, was closed in the year 1995 and that there was a change of

Management. According to the Security Services, the Principal employer alone was liable to pay compensation.

Before the Commissioner, the applicant examined himself as AW. 1 and AW. 2, is the Doctor, who examined the applicant, with reference to

medical records. The Commissioner has framed four points for consideration,

Whether the respondent/claimant sustained any injury, arising out of and during the course of employment?

What the salary and age of the respondent/claimant?

Who has to pay compensation?

What was the extent of loss of earning capacity?

Upon considering the pleadings and evidence, the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, fixed the liability on the Management

of Annamalai University, Madras and quantified the compensation at Rs. 9,079/-. Being aggrieved by the above, the University has preferred this

appeal.

The following questions of law have been framed,

(i) Whether the 1st respondent who was engaged by the 2nd respondent as a contract labour could maintain a petition under the Workmen''s

Compensation Act, against the appellant?

(ii) Whether the finding of the Court below to the effect that a accident had occurred during the course of employment is not contrary to the

admission made by the 1st respondent and therefore, whether the same could be sustained?

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

Material on record discloses that when the respondent/claimant proceeded towards a bathroom to wash the vessel, he slipped and sustained

injuries. There should be a casual connection between the nature of employment and the accident. It is true that the respondent/claimant has

sustained injury. The Employer''s liability under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, would arise only if the conditions laid down in Section

3(1) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, are fulfilled, which are, (i) he was workman, (ii) on the day when he sustained injury, he attended the

job, and (iii) injury took place due to the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The meaning of the words ''in the course of

the employment and ""casual connection between the injury and the accident"", have been well explained by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co.

Ltd., v. Saraswathi and Another, (2008) 2 CLT 541, this Court held as follows:

To maintain a claim u/s 3 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, the claimant has to establish that there was an injury caused to the workman and

there must be a causal connection between the injury and the accident. To prove that the claimant sustained an ""employment injury"" in an accident

arising out of and in the course of employment, the claimant has to establish that (1) stress and strain arising during the course of employment (2)

the nature of employment (3) injury aggravated due to stress and strain. Unless material evidence is brought on record to elaborate that death by

way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress and strain, the commissioner would not have jurisdiction to grant damages. There must be

material evidence on record to establish that the workman died on account of injury caused due to the strenuous nature of work which he was

carrying on and if the death has taken in the normal course of way, then there was no connection between his death and employment. A duty is

cast on the claimant to establish that there is a causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment. As held by the Supreme

Court in Shakuntala''s case, the crucial link between the causal connection of employment with the death of an employee should be on the basis of

a legal evidence and cannot be a matter of surmises and conjectures. There must be a proximate nexus with the injury caused due to stress and

strain arising out of and in the course of employment and that it should be integrally connected with death.

In the case on hand, perusal of the award shows that the injured was not directly employed by the Management of Annamalai University and

that he did not suffer any employment injury, during the course of employment, with the University. Inasmuch as the respondent/claimant has not

satisfied the requirements, this Court is of the view that the finding, fastening liability on the appellant-University to pay compensation, requires to

be reversed. Accordingly, the finding is set aside. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.