AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Shivakumar, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour, Tiruchirappalli in his capacity as Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation in W.C. No. 140 of 1995.
The first respondent herein, claiming to have sustained injuries leading to permanent disability in an accident that took place on 21.02.1994
which according to him arose out of and in the course of his employment as a loadman under the appellant/the first opposite party in the W.C.
before the lower authority, had preferred a claim petition in W.C. No. 140 of 1995 praying for an award directing the appellant herein and the
second respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. The claim was made against the second respondent herein also, since
the accident took place while the first respondent/claimant was in the process of taking of the rice bags from the row of rice bags arranged in the
godown No. V belonging to the second respondent for loading the same on a lorry. The claim was resisted by the appellant herein/the first
opposite party, contending that no accident would have occurred on 21.02.1994 as no transaction was made on the said date. The other
allegations found in the claim application were also denied by the appellant/the first opposite party. The second respondent herein/second opposite
party resisted the claim on the ground that the first respondent herein/claimant was not a worker under the second respondent; that even as per the
petition averments the appellant/the first opposite party alone was his employer and that hence, the second respondent was not liable to pay any
compensation to the first respondent/claimant. To substantiate the claim of the first respondent/claimant, three witnesses including the claimant were
examined and five documents were marked on the side of the first respondent herein/claimant. Likewise, three witnesses were examined and three
documents were marked on behalf of the appellant and the second respondent/the first and second opposite parties.
The Commissioner, after enquiry, recorded a finding that the first respondent/claimant was a workman under the appellant herein/the first
opposite party and that he sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on 21.02.1994. Holding that the first
respondent herein/claimant was aged 45 years and was in receipt of Rs. 1,200/- as his monthly wages, the Commissioner took his monthly wages
at Rs. 1000/- as per the ceiling provided in the Act and awarded a sum of Rs. 42,360/- as compensation. The said amount was directed to be
paid by the appellant herein/the first opposite party together with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount calculated from the
date of accident till realisation. The said order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the Commissioner in the above said W.C. is the subject matter of
challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel on either side have been heard. The relevant records were also perused by this Court.
As many as five questions have been shown to be the substantial questions of law in the grounds of appeal. This Court, at the time of admission,
picked up three out of the above said questions as substantial questions of law. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant, at the time of
advancing arguments in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, has projected the following two questions alone as the substantial questions of law. They
are:
1) Whether the Commissioner has cast the burden of proving that the first respondent herein/claimant was not an employee on the appellant
herein/first opposite party and thereby committed an error? And
2) Whether the finding of the lower authority regarding the employee-employer relationship is perverse?
After going through the records, in the light of the submission made on either side, this Court is also satisfied that the above said two questions
alone can be construed as the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal.
The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation (lower authority) did not
properly consider the evidence adduced regarding the relationship of ""workman and employer"" claimed by the first respondent herein/claimant; that
a clinching piece of evidence capable of totally devastating the case of the first respondent herein/claimant against the appellant herein/the first
opposite party namely, Ex. R. 1 was completely ignored by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation and that the Commissioner rendered
a perverse finding in this regard. According to him, based on the evidence adduced in this case, no prudent person would have arrived at a
conclusion as done by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation/lower authority. This Court does not find any substance in the above said
contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The following are the reasons. Ex. R. 1 is a letter addressed to the Quality Inspector of
the appellant herein/the first opposite party by the Warehouse Manager of the second respondent. It simply states that godown Nos. I and IV had
been let out to the appellant herein/the first opposite party and that for the immediate need of the appellant herein/the first opposite party herein 24
numbers of Navtal locks had also been lent. Seeking immediate return of the said Navtal locks as objections were raised in the audit, Ex. R. 1,
letter was addressed to the Quality Inspector of the appellant herein on 13.05.1995. The only inference that can be made from Ex. R. 1 is that two
godowns bearing godown Nos. I and IV had been let out to the appellant herein/the first opposite party on lease to its exclusive use and that the
said godowns were kept by the appellant under lock and key. By no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that no other godown except
godown Nos. I and IV was either let out to the appellant herein or that the appellant was not allowed to use any other godown to keep its stocks.
On the other hand, Exs.R.2 and R.3 besides falsifying the above said contentions of the appellant herein/the first opposite party provide
corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1 that on 21.02.1994, rice bags belonging to the appellant herein were removed from godown No. V. As
evidenced by Ex. R. 3, 828 rice bags had been deposited with the Warehouse Manager to be kept in godown No. V. Out of them, 12 bags were
taken out on 21.02.1994 as per Ex. R. 2. They are more than enough to negative the contention of the appellant that there was no transaction on
21.02.1994. On the other hand, there are the testimony of P.W. 1-the claimant, P.W. 3-Jayapaul and P.W. 4-Dhanapalan which go to show that
godown Nos. IV and V were fully under the control of the appellant herein and a part of godown No. V was used for keeping the goods of the
appellant herein. From their evidence, it is clear that compartments 1 and 3 of godown No. V had been left for the use of Tamil Nadu Text Book
Society and compartment No. 2 of godown No. V had been left for the use of the appellant herein. The Quality Inspector and Assistant Quality
Inspector of the appellant Corporation have deposed as R.W.1 and R.W.2 respectively. They were not in a position to deny that rice bags
belonging to the appellant had been stored in godown No. V also. In addition to that R.W. 2 was not able to deny that the accident occurred on
21.02.1994 while removing the rice bags from the godown No. V to load them in the lorry. There is also an admission by him that the Wage
Disbursement Register pertaining to the loadmen was available in the office of the appellant herein and the same was not produced. On the other
hand, the claimant has produced Ex. P.6, Loadmen Attendance Register for 21.02.1994. Ex. P.9, Accident Register also provides corroboration
to the evidence of P.W. 1. When such is the nature of evidence adduced on behalf of the first respondent herein/claimant, this Court is of the
considered view that the above said contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced.
It is not correct to state that the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation/lower authority has caused the burden of disproving the
relationship of employer-employee on the appellant and that the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation/lower authority in this
regard was perverse. The contentions raised in this regard on behalf of the appellant do not deserve acceptance by this Court and hence, the
above said contentions made on behalf of the appellant are to be discountenanced as untenable.
For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant has miserably failed in its attempt to challenge the
impugned award on both the questions of law. Regarding the quantum, no question of law has been raised. There is no merit in the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal and the same deserves ton be dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation dated
10.09.1998 passed in W.C. No. 140 of 1995 is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.