Madras High Court
M/S.Hyundai Engineering Plastic India ... vs The Learned Joint Commissioner Of ... on 10 November, 2025
WP.No. 12193 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No. 12193 of 2024
M/s.Hyundai Engineering Plastic India Pvt. Ltd.,
No.134, Vayalur Village,
Thiruvallur – 602 105. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The learned Joint Commissioner of Labour – II,
D.M.S. Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai-6.
2.Tmt.Brindha ...Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking
issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.12.2023 in
E.C.No.161 of 2022 on the file of the learned Joint Commissioner of
Labour-II, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Abishek Murthy
For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Purushothaman
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm )
WP.No. 12193 of 2024
Special Government Pleader for R1
Mr.R.Ramesh for R2
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award dated 19.12.2023, of the Joint Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, in E.C.No. 161 of 2022, granting compensation of Rs.15,44,625/- along with 12% interest per annum nd for the death of one Moorthy / the 2 respondent's husband, in a motor accident, which occurred on 31.10.2020.
2. The respondent's husband was working as a Machine Operator in Production Department of the petitioner/Company. On 31.10.2020, while the respondent's husband was proceeding from his residence to the Company, he met with an accident, sustained grevious injuries and 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024 succumbed to the same on 06.11.2020. Hence, the 2nd respondent filed a petition for compensation before the Joint Commissioner of Labour – II under Section 22(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
3. Resisting the said claim, the petitioner herein, filed a counter raising several defences including that the respondent's husband violated the petitioner/Company's circular, instructing the employees to avail the Company transportation. The petitioner/Company by invoking the doctrine of added peril stated that it was not liable to pay compensation to the respondent's husband. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased employee in not following the standing orders of the petitioner/Company, and therefore, it ought to be construed that accident did not take place in the course of employment. The petitioner/Company further contended that pursuant to the death of the employee, the 2nd respondent, as wife, was paid the salary, gratuity, leave 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024 benefits and LTA in full and final settlement. On the basis of the above contentions, the petitioner/Company prayed for dismissal of the claim.
4. On consideration of the materials on record, the Joint Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai, allowed the petition directing the petitioner/Company to pay the compensation of Rs.15,44,625/- along with 12% interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/Company filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Company primarily contended that the petitioner/Company was not liable to pay the compensation claimed by the respondent on the doctrine of added peril. The learned counsel contended that the doctrine of added peril applied to the facts of the case, since the respondent's husband violated the Company's standing instructions to use the Company transportation. 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent / wife of the deceased, submitted that the Labour Court had appreciated the entire facts in proper perspective and ordered compensation. He further submitted that since the Labour Court had exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law, this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the order of the Labour Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
8. The issue for determination is whether the petitioner/Company is liable to pay compensation to the 2nd respondent for the death of her husband in a motor accident that occurred on 31.10.2020.
5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024
9.The material facts are not disputed. The deceased, an employee of the petitioner/Company, while travelling on 31.10.2020, from his residence to the Company in his personal vehicle, met with an accident and succumbed to his injuries on 06.11.2020. The petitioner's witness, Mohan Babu [RW1] identified the deceased and admitted him in the Hospital, where he died. It is an admitted fact that the accident occurred while the employee was commuting from his home to work place, thereby bringing the incident within the course of employment.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daivshala and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2025 Online SC 1534. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the liability for accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. The 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024 relevant extract reads as follows:-
“55. Applying the above principle, we interpret the phrase “accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” occurring in Section 3 of the EC Act to include accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty, provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established.”
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. However, it was contended that the Company through a Circular/Ex.R1 dated 05.03.2019, had instructed its employees to use the Company provided cabs for commuting and that the deceased, contrary to such instructions, used his private vehicle. It was argued that the doctrine of ''added peril'' therefore applies.
7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024
12. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the Company had issued another circular, Ex.R-2 on 10.03.2023, which was far more stringent, making use of the Company transport mandatory and warning tht non-compliance would absolve the Company of all liability.
13. The Labour Court, after examining Exs.R1 and R2, held that the Circular dated 05.03.2019, was merely advisory and flexible in nature, whereas Ex.R2 issued on 10.03.2023, after the death of the employee, introduced mandatory conditions. The labour Court concluded that Ex.R2 could not be retrospectively applied to deny compensation. The Labour Court found that the earlier Circular was more flexible and for such finding, relied on the evidence of the 2nd respondent, who in her cross-examination clearly stated that her husband used to travel both by Company-bus as well as in his private vehicle, that the petitioner/Company did not stringently 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024 instruct the employees to strictly use the Company transportation and that if her husband was strictly instructed, he would not have used private transport.
14. It appears that two Circulars were issued by the petitioner/Company, one on 05.03.2019, and the other on 10.03.2023, i.e., after the demise of the 2nd respondent's husband. The former Circular dated 05.03.2019 reads as follows:-
“Management has given many instructions to use Company providing cabs for Commuting House to Company, Company to House and other official works. Even after many instructions, it has been observing that few of our employees has been commuting by their own vehicles especially in Second shift and Night shift. Management herewith strongly instruct to use company cabs only because of management sincere concern for employee safety.” 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024
15.The operative portion of the later circular dated 10.03.2023 reads as follows:-
“,dpnkw; bfhz;L fk;bgdp tpjpKiwf;F khwhf brhe;j thfdj;jpy; gzpf;F tUgth;fs; gzpf;F mDkjpf;fg;glkhl;lhh;fs; vd;gij mwpat[k;/ Vbdd;why; bjhHpyhsh; eyd; bghUl;L Vw;ghL bra;agl;l trjpia gad;gLj;jhky; j';fs; ,c&;lk; nghy; ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpy; tUtJ xU mj;J kPwpa bray;/ ,jdhy; Vw;gLk; tpist[fSf;F eph;thfk;ve;j re;jh;g;gj;jpYk; bghWg;ngw;fkhl;lhh;fs;/”
16. From a comparitive reading of both the Circulars, it is evident that only the second circular mandates the employees to use the company transport. The first circular which was operative on the date of the accident, was merely advisory and flexible. This conclusion also finds support from RW1's evidence. The Labour Court was therefore correct in holding that the 2nd Circular was introduced only to avoid liability and cannot be applied to the present case. Consequently, the doctrine of added peril has no application to the facts of the case.10/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024
17.On an overall consideration, I find absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with the law and on the basis of the evidence. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of hte Constitution of India, cannot interfere with factual findings of fact of the Labour Court, unless the findings are perverse and contrary to law.
18. In view of the discussion, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs.
10.11.2025 kkn/AP Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Nuetral Citation : Yes/No 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024 To:-
1.The learned Joint Commissioner of Labour – II, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-6.
N.MALA, J.
KKN/AP W.P.No. 12193 of 2024 12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm ) WP.No. 12193 of 2024 10.11.2025 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 07:01:16 pm )