Madras High Court
Anglo French Textiles Of Pondicherry vs A.Francis on 2 March, 2021
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
C.M.A.No.1629 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.1629 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Anglo French Textiles of Pondicherry
Textiles Corporation Limited (P.T.C),
Rep by its Managing Director,
Cuddalore Road,
Mudaliarpet,
Puducherry - 605 004.
.. Appellant
Vs.
1.A.Francis
2.The Additional Commissioner for
Employees Compensation,
Puducherry.
.. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 31.01.2013, in
W.C.A.No.2 of 2002, on the file of the Additional Commissioner for
Employees' Compensation, Puducherry.
For Appellant : M/s.N.Mala
For Respondents : No Appearance for R1 and R2
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1629 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the respondent in W.C.A.No.2 of 2002 filed by the first respondent herein, who was working as an Assistant Manager (Engineering) under the "C" unit of the appellant and the Anglo French Textiles Corporation Limited, had sustained injuries in his fingers. While he was checking the motor his left hand middle and index fingers got crushed in the pump motor. Immediately, he took treatment. Even after that he has not been recovered. So, he claimed compensation before the Appellant Corporation. The Commissioner of Labour, awarded the compensation. Aggrieved by that, the respondent/appellant has preferred the appeal.
2. Point for Consideration:
Whether the Commissioner of Labour erred in holding that the first respondent was working as an Assistant Manager and an employee under the EC Act and awarding compensation?.2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1629 of 2015
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of the alleged accident, the first respondent was employed as Assistant Manager with Code No.S 1373 "C" Unit of the Anglo French Textiles Corporation Limited. So, he will not come under the definition of the employee nor on par with that of workmen. The Commissioner of Labour, erroneously concluded that he also comes under the definition of Workmen and granted the compensation.
4. The injured was working as an Assistant Manager (Engineering) with code No.S-1373 'C' Unit with the duty to safeguard the machinery from any damages and he rushed to the plant to check the working condition of the motor that got water pouring, which is part of the work concerned in the Textile Corporation.
5. Admittedly, as per Section 2(k) of Factories Act, "manufacturing process" means any process for:-
(i) making, altering, reparing, ornamenting, finishing, 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1629 of 2015 packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale transport, delivery or disposal, or
(ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance, or
(iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power; or
(iv) composing types for printing, printing by letter press, lithography, photogravure or other similar process or book binding; or
(v) Constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels;
(vi) preserving or storing any article cold storage;
(i) "worker" means a person [employed, directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor) with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not], in any manufacturing process or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing process [but does not include any member of the armed forces of the union."4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1629 of 2015
6. Hence, the workman employed in any capacity connected with the manufacturing process is a workman. Thus, a person employed for lifting articles and for sweeping a mill is a workman as held in Ranik Singh Vs. Ram Badan, (1961-62) 21 FJR 14 (Punji).
7. In this case, while the injured was checking the motor his left hand middle and index fingers got crushed in the pump motor in the very eyes of workers. Therefore, the objection raised by the appellant that the injured is not entitled to claim compensation under the Act is unsustainable one.
8. Combined reading of both provisions of law clearly reveals the nature of the job conducted by the respondent. At the time of accident, the respondent / applicant was working with the manufacturing company of the appellant factory and also a person who is employed in any such capacity deems to be an employee. Further, the ratio followed in P.C.C. Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and others, (1993 (1) LLJ 65) also squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1629 of 2015
9. The Commissioner of Labour, rightly observed all these proportion of law and had rightly concluded that EC Act, does not exempt "Assistant Manager" or in particular person in a managerial capacity is brought out of the purview of the definition of "employee". Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is unsustainable one.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, Puducherry, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No Costs.
02.03.2021 ub Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1629 of 2015 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
ub C.M.A.No.1629 of 2015 02.03.2021 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/