Madras High Court
Unknown vs Palanichamy on 20 November, 2019
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc
IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 05.11.2019
Pronounced On 20.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006
and
C.M.A.No.434 of 2007
and
M.P.No. of 2006
C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006
krishnaswamy Gounder ...Appellant
vs
1.Palanichamy
2.Hariraj ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the order passed in
W.C.No.89 of 2011 dated 27.12.2005 by the Workmen
Compensation Commissioner/ the Deputy Commissioner of labour,
Coimbatore.
For appellant : Mr.T.N.Naveen for
M/s.D.Kamatchi
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.G.K.Muthu Kumar
_____________
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No 1 of 24
C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc
C.M.A.No.434 of 2007
Palanisamy ...Appellant
vs
1.Hariraj
2.Krishnasamy Gounder ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, to set aside the order dated
27.12.2005 in W.C.Case No.89 of 2004 passed by the learned
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/ Deputy Commissioner
of Labour to the extent of dis-allowing the claim in full and direct
the respondents to pay a further sum of Rs.1,20,661/- (Rupees One
lakh Twenty Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty One
For appellant : No appearance
For R1 : Mr.G.K.Muthu Kumar
For R2 : Mr.T.N.Naveen for
M/s.D.Kamatchi
COMMON JUDGMENT
By this common judgment, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being disposed.
_____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 2 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc
2.Both the appeals are directed against the orders dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore in W.C.No.89 of 2004. C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 has been filed by Krishnasamy Gounder the owner of the coconut farms/grove where the claimant Palanisamy allegedly fell and suffered employment injury. C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 has been filed by the Workman/claimant for enhancement of the compensation.
3.By the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has awarded a sum of Rs.1,79,339/- to be paid by the owner of the coconut farm/grove, the said Krishnasamy Gounder, the appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 to the claimant who is the appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007.
4.While the claimant/appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 has prayed for enhancement of compensation, the owner of the coconut farm/grove Krishnaswamy Gounder/ appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 seeks to set aside the order holding him liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
_____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 3 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc
5.In both the appeals, the common respondent is one Hariraj the alleged coconut merchant. In the claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore in W.C.No.89 of 2004, the said Hariraj was the 1st respondent who had allegedly engaged the claimant for plucking coconut from the said Krishnasamy Gounder's coconut farm/grove.
6.The case of the claimant before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was that he was employed by the said Hariraj and deputed to the coconut farm/grove of Krishnaswamy Gounder (the appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006) for plucking coconuts from the coconut tree and that on 27.01.2004 while plucking coconuts from the coconut tree and throwing them on the floor, he fell from a height of 25 ft and fractured his backbone and suffered 100% disability and therefore prayed for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
7.In the said proceedings, both Hariraj and the Krishnaswamy Gounder denied their liability.
8.The said Hariraj took a defence that he had shut down his business carried by him under the name and style of Harish _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 4 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc Coconut Products Private Limited way back in August 2003 and therefore there was no occasion for him to purchase coconut or deal in coconut and therefore denied that he had arranged the claimant and others for plucking coconut from the coconut farm/grove of the said Krishnaswamy Gounder.
9.Krishnaswamy Gounder/the appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 in his counter had stated that he owns coconut farm/grove and used to sell coconuts from his farm to various merchants and that merchants used to employ local labourers to pluck coconuts not only from his farm but also from the neighbouring farm. The said Krishnaswamy Gounder in his counter also denied that the claimant was in his farm or had plucked coconut in his coconut farm on the said date.
10.In the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has concluded that the said Krishnaswamy Gounder has not established that he had no connection with the said Hariraj. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour has further held that since the claimant has also not proved with the documentary and oral evidence that he had gone to work in the garden of the said Krishnaswamy Gounder on the instruction of the said Hariraj, the _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 5 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc said Krishnaswamy Gounder was liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
11.On behalf of the claimant, the claimant and one Rajan have deposed evidences. Both the Hariraj and the said Krishnaswamy Gounder have deposed evidence on their behalf.
12.In both the proceedings, the said Hariraj, the alleged coconut merchants seeks to distance himself by stating that he was not engaged in coconut business and that he had closed down on his bussiness as early as 2003 and that he had never engaged the claimant on the said date for plucking coconut from the said Krishnaswamy Gounder's farm/grove.
13.I have considered the evidence on record and perused the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour.
14.In both appeals, the owner of the coconut farm/grove namely Krishnaswamy Gounder/appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and the claimants/appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 have raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-
_____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 6 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc C.M.A.No.3392 of 2007:-
i. Whether when the 1st Respondent/Petitioner himself has clearly and specifically claimed in the petition filed in the W.C and also in his deposition as P.W.1 that he was employed under the 2nd respondent herein, during the course of such employment he had sustained injuries and claimed compensation in the W.C from his and P.W.2 examined by him also stated only to that effect, the Deputy Commissioner can proceed contrary to the same and hold that the 1st respondent/petitioner was employed under the appellant and directed the appellant to pay compensation to him and the said mistake had not vitiated his Order and made it perverse? ii. Whether the Deputy Commissioner can ignore the facts, pleadings, claim made in W.C., the provisions of the W.C. Act and materials on record, presume facts and circumstances on his own, giving contrary findings and directing the Appellant to pay compensation to the 1st Respondent, instead of, the 2nd Respondent herein?
iii. Whether the Order of the Deputy Commissioner is not violative of Sec.3 of the W.C. Act and consequently, can such an order be sustained in law and enforced against the Appellant viz., a third party?
_____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 7 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc iv. Whether even if the claim made by the 1st Respondent in the W.C is true, in view of Sec.2(1)(e) and other provisions of the W.C.Act, the Appellant as the owner of the Coconut Groove wherein he had plucked coconuts as employee of the 2nd Respondent, can be treated as his employer and make his liable to pay compensation?
v. Whether once it is concluded that the 1st Respondent has not proved his claim that he was employed under the 2nd Respondent and during the course of such employment he had sustained injuries, in view of Sec.2(1)(e)(n) of the W.C.Act, he as a Coconut Tree Climber, is not liable to be treated as a self-employed person and his claim for compensation rejected?
vi. When the Appellant is only the owner of the Coconut Groove and he is not doing any trade or business, even if the 1st Respondent had sustained injuries while plucking Coconuts in the said Coconut Groove, such engagement can create employer-employee between them and not as casual in nature and confer a legal right on the 1 st respondent to claim compensation from the Appellant under the W.C.Act?
vii.Whether the 1st respondent/claimant is not bound to prove his claim that (i) he was employed under the 2nd respondent herein, (ii) during the course of such employment, he had sustained injuries and _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 8 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc
(iii) he is liable to pay compensation to him and on his failure to do so, the Deputy Commissioner can fix the liability on the Appellant and direct him to pay the compensation to the 1st Respondent by shifting the burden of proof on the Appellant that the 1st Respondent come and plucked coconuts in his coconut groove through the 2nd Respondent?
viii.Whether the fixation of income of the 1st respondent/claimant and the quantum of compensation payable to him made by the Deputy Commissioner arbitrarily without any basis or materials or reason and contrary to the W.C.Act, can be sustained and enforced in law? ix. Whether contrary to the claim made by the 1st Respondent/Claimant himself and material on record, the Deputy Commissioner was right in treating the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent herein as joint employers , framing an issue as to whether the 1st Respondent was employed under them and sustained injuries during the course of such employment and disposed of the W.C and the said mistake had not vitiated his order and made it perverse?
C.M.A.No.434 of 2007:-
i. Whether the learned Commissioner has give importance to the admitted facts of the case? ii. Whether the learned Commissioner has considered the pleading and evidence proper with _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 9 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc an open mind?
iii. Whether the learned Commissioner has right in disallowing the claim of the Appellant in full? iv. Whether the learned Commissioner is right in directing the 1st respondent to pay the compensation amount without taking note of the evidence of P.W.2?
15.Heard the learned counsels for the appellant and the 2nd respondent in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 (C.M.A.No.434 of 2007).
16.The owner of the coconut farm/grove namely Krishnasamy Gounder/appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and the Hariraj Coconut merchant denied the liability and make it seen and have stated both had no connection with each other. The said Hariraj Coconut merchant on the other hand to buttress his defence has filed Ex.D1 to D10 stating that he had stopped this coconut business way back in August 2003 and he was not responsible for the alleged accident.
17.I have perused the evidences on record, depositions of the witness and the impugned order.
_____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 10 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc
18.The deposition of P.W.2 Rajan confirms that on the fateful day i.e on 27.01.2004, the claimant Palanisamy was at Coconut farm/grove of the said Krishnaswamy Gounder with others and while plucking Coconut from the trees, the claimant fell down from a 25 feet hight and suffered grievous injuries. After the fell, he was taken to the Anaimalai Government Hospital by the son of the said Krishnasamy Gounder namely the Kuppusamy Gounder where he was given first aid and thereafter was taken to the Pollachi Government Hospital and thereafter to the Coimbatore Government Hospital for further treatment.
19.The evidence relating to the accident and treatment given to the claimant/appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 cannot be brushed aside. It stands concluded that the claimant namely Palanisamy suffered injury due to fall him coconut tree at the said Krishnasamy Gounder's coconut farm/grove on the fateful day.
20.The claimant was also declared 100% physically impaired due to Traumatic Paraplegia vide E.P4 certificate of Doctor V.Ramamoorthy, Coimbatore Rehabilitation Centre.
_____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 11 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc
21.The defence put forwarded by the said Hariraj, the alleged coconut merchant that he was no longer in coconut business and had stopped the same as early as August 2003 though plausible does not negate evidence of PW1 & PW2. Ex.R3 is merely letter from the said Hariraj merely states that he was running a business under the name and style of Harish Coconut Products Pvt.Ltd, 2/141, Kanjampatty Pirivu, Unjavelampatty (P.O), Pollachi – 642 003 which was engaged in the manufacture of Desiccated Coconut, Coconut Fibre, Curled Coil, Coir-pity and that the business was shut down due to the fall in demand for final product and non availability of Raw material. The said letter was addressed to the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Rural Officer, Pollachi for disconnecting the Low Tension (LT) connect and not to charge the electricity charges.
22.Similarly Ex. R6 is a extract from the Delivery Book of the said Harish Coconut Product (P) Ltd., bearing acknowledgment from the Tabal Section of the Commercial Tax Officer informing them regarding cessation of work by Harish Coconut Products (p) Ltd.
23.Prima facie, the evidence on record indicates that the said Hariraj had engaged the services of various person for plucking coconut from the coconut farm/grove of the said Krishnasamy _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 12 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc Gounder appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006. He had engaged the service of claimant Palanisamy and others on the fateful day i.e 27.01.2004 and while plucking the coconut the claimant palanisamy fell from the coconut tree.
24.Therefore, the real issue that the arises for consideration is whether the claimant palanisamy was a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and if so whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was justified in awarding compensation to be paid by the said Krishnasamy Gounder alone.
25.The relevant portion of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 during the period in dispute reads as follows:-
2. (n) “Workman” means any person who is -(1)
(i) ...........
(ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, Whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 13 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of Union; and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependents or any of them.
(2) ...................
(3) ...................
26.Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act reads as follows:-
The following persons are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(1) (n) and subject to the provisions of that section, that is to say, any person who is-
(i) employed otherwise than in a clerical capacity or on a railway in connection with the operation repair or maintenance of a lift or a vehicle propelled by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity or in connection with the loading or unloading of any such vehicle; or
(ii) employed otherwise than in clerical capacity in any premises wherein or within the precincts whereof a manufacturing process as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Factories Act 1948 (63 of 1948) is being carried on or in any kind of work whatsoever incident to or connected with any such manufacturing process or with the article made whether or not employment in any such work is within such premises or precincts and steam water or other mechanical power or electrical power is used; or
(iii) employed for the purpose of making altering repairing ornamenting finishing or otherwise adapting for use transport or sale any article or _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 14 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc part of an article in any premises wherein or within the percents whereof twenty or more person are so employed;
Explanation: For the purposes of this clause persons employed outside such premises or precincts but in any work incidental to or connected with the work relating to making altering repairing ornamenting finishing or otherwise adapting for use transport or sale of any article or part of an article shall be deemed to be employed within such premises or precincts: or
(iv) employed in the manufacture or handling of explosives in connection with the employer's trade or business; or
(v) employed in any mine as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Mines Act 1952 (35 of 1952) in any mining operation or in any kind of work other than clerical work incidental to or connected with any mining operation or with the mineral obtained or in any kind or work whatsoever below ground; or
(vi) employed as the master or as a seaman of –
(a) any ship which is propelled wholly or in part by steam or other mechanical power of by electricity or which is towed or intended to be towed by a ship so propelled; or
(b) any ship not included in sub-clause (a) of twenty-five tones net tonnage or over; or
(c) any sea-going ship not included in sub-clause
(a) or sub-clause (b) provided with sufficient area for navigation under sails alone; or
(vii) employed for the purpose of -
(a) loading unloading fuelling constructing repairing demolishing cleaning or painting any ship of which he is not the master or a member of the crew or handling or transport within the limits of any post subject to the Indian Ports Act 1908 (15 of 1908) or the Major Port Trusts Act 1963 (18 of 1963) of goods which have been discharged from or are to be loaded into any vessel; or
(b) warping a ship through the lock; or
(c) mooring and unmooring ships at harbor wall berths or in pier; or _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 15 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc
(d) removing or replacing dry dock caissons when vessels are entering or leaving dry docks; or
(e) the docking or undocking of any vessel during an emergency; or
(f) preparing splicing coir springs and check wires painting depth marks on lock sides removing or replacing fenders whenever necessary landing of gangways maintaining lifebuoys up to standard or any other maintenance work of a like nature; or
(g) any work on jolly boats for bringing a ship's line to the wharf; or
(viii) employed in the construction maintenance repair or demolition of -
(a) any building which is designed to be or is or has been more than one storey in height above the ground or twelve feet or more from the ground level to the apex of the roof or
(b) any dam or embankment which is twelve feet or more in height from its lowest to its highest point; or
(c) any road bridge tunnel or canal; or
(d) any wharf quay sea wall or other marine work including any moorings of ships; or
(ix) employed in setting up maintaining repairing or taking down any telegraph or telephone line or post or any overhead electric line or cable or standard or fittings and fixtures for the same; or
(x) employed otherwise than in a clerical capacity in the construction working repair or demolition of anyserial ropeway canal pipeline or sewer; or
(xi) employed in the service of any fire brigade; or
(xii) employed upon a railway as defined in clause (31) of section 2 and sub-section (1) of section 197 of the Indian Railway Act 1989 (24 of 1989) either directly or through a sub-contractor by a person fulfilling a contract with the railway administration; or
(xiii) employed as an inspector mail guard sorter or van peon in the Railway Mail Service or as a telegraphist or as a postal or railway signaler or employed in any occupation ordinarily involving outdoor work in the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department; or _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 16 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc
(xiv) employed otherwise than in a clerical capacity in connection with operations for winning natural petroleum or natural gas; or
(xv) employed in any occupation involving blasting operations; or (xvi) employed in the making of any excavation in which on any one day of the preceding twelve months more than twenty-five persons have been employed or explosives have been used or whose depth from its highest to its lowest point exceeds twelve feet; or (xvii) employed in the operation of any ferry boat capable of carrying more than ten person; or (xviii) employed otherwise than in a clerical capacity on any estate which is maintained for the purpose of growing cardamom cinchona coffee rubber or tea and on which on any one day in the preceding twelve months twenty-five or more persons have been so employed; or (xix) employed otherwise than in a clerical capacity in the generating transforming transmitting or distribution of electrical energy or in generation or supply of gas; or (xx) employed in a lighthouse as defined in clause
(d) of section 2 of the Indian Lighthouse Act 1927 (17 of 1927); or (xxi) employed in producing cinematograph pictures intended for public exhibition or in exhibiting such pictures; or (xxii) employed in the training keeping or working of elephants or wild animals; or (xxiii) employed in the tapping of palm trees or the felling or logging of trees or the transport of timber by inland waters or the control or extinguishing or forests fires; or (xxiv) employed in operations for the catching or hunting of elephants or other wild animals; or (xxv) employed as a diver; or (xxvi) employed in the handling or transport of goods in or within the precincts of –
(a) any warehouse or other place in which goods are stored and in which on any one day of the _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 17 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc preceding twelve months ten or more persons have been so employed or
(b) any market in which on any one day of the preceding twelve months fifty or more persons have been so employed; or (xxvii) employed in any occupation involving the handling and manipulation of radium or X-ray apparatus or contract with radioactive substances; or (xxviii) employed in or in connection with the construction erection dismantling operation or maintenance of an aircraft as defined in section 2 of the Indian Aircraft Act 1934 (22 of 1934); or (xxix) employed in horticultural operations forestry bee keeping or framing by tractors or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity; or (xxx) employed otherwise than in a clerical capacity in the construction working repair or maintenance of a tube-well; or (xxxi) employed in the maintenance repair or renewal of electric fittings in any building; or (xxxii) employed in a circus.
(xxxiii) employed as watchman in any factory or establishment; or (xxxiv) employed in any operation in the sea for catching fish;
(xxxv) employed in any employment which requires handling of snakes for the purpose of extraction of venom or for the purpose of looking after snakes or handling any other poisonous animal or insects; or (xxxvi) employed in handling animals like horses mules and bulls;
(xxxvii) employed for the purpose of loading or unloading any mechanically propelled vehicle or in the handling or transport of goods which have been loaded in such vehicles;
(xxxviii) employed in cleaning of sewer lines or septic tanks within the limits of a local authority;
_____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 18 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc (xxxix) employed on surveys and investigation exploration or garage or discharge observation of rivers including drilling operations hydrological observations and flood forecasting activities groundwater surveys and exploration; (xl) employed in cleaning of jungles or reclaiming land or ponds in which on any one day of the preceding twelve months more than twenty-five persons have been employed;
(xli) employed in cultivation of land or rearing and maintenance of live-stock or forest operations or fishing in which on any one day of the preceding twelve months more than twenty-five persons have been employed;
(xlii) employed in installation maintenance or repair of pumping equipment used for lifting of water from wells tube wells ponds lakes streams and the like;
(xliii) employed in the construction boring or deepening of an open well bore well bore-cum-dug well filter point and the like;
(xliv) employed in spraying and dusting of insecticides or pesticides in agricultural operations or plantations; or (xlv) employed in mechanized harvesting and threshing operations;
(xlvi) employed in working or repair or maintenance of bulldozers tractors power tillers and the like;
(xlvii) employed as artists for drawing pictures on advertisement boards at a height of 3.66 meters or more from the ground level;
(xlviii) employed in any newspaper establishment as defined in the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Services) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1955 (45 of 1955) and engaged in outdoor work.
Explanation: In this Schedule the preceding twelve months relates in any particular case to the twelve months ending with the day on which the accident in such case occurred.
_____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 19 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc
27.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour has failed to discuss as to how the claimant/appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 can be called as “workman” within the meaning of the definition of Workman under Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 read with Schedule II to the Act. Though, the operation to the activity undertaken to the claimant appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 is akin to the one in serial No. xviii (18), xxiii (23) and xxix (29) of the Schedule II of the said Act, yet there was no discussion as to how the claimant/appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 can be construed as a “workman” within the meaning of the said Act read with Schedule II to the Act.
28.Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour deserves to be interfered while at the same time, the factum of injury caused at the Coconut farm/grove of the said Krishnasamy Gounder appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and engagement of the appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 by the said Hariraj stands confirmed.
29.The appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007/claimant has questioned the computation of compensation made by the Deputy _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 20 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc Commissioner of Labour by calculating aforesaid compensation by adopting G.O.(2d).No.22 dated 24.03.2000 to arrive the monthly wages of Rs.2613/- while awarding to the claimant. In C.M.A.No.434 of 2007, the appellant has claimed that he was paid Rs.4,500/- per month as monthly wages from the said Hariraj the coconut merchant.
30.The prima facie evidence on the available records shows that the claimant/appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 was injured at the coconut farm/grove of the said Krishnasamy Gounder appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 was engaged by said Hariraj the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. Therefore, both of them are jointly liable to pay compensation.
31.At the same time, the amount has been directed to be paid by the Krishnaswamy Gounder that is appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006, I am of the view that the said amount may be directed to pay to the claimant/appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 for the present.
32.Liberty is given to the appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 to establish his case before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 21 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc Coimbatore. In case, the said appellant succeeds in proving his case, the amount may be directed to be recovered either from the said Hariraj i.e the 2nd respondent in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 or by holding the said Hariraj joinly or severally liable along with the said Krishnaswamy Gounder the appellant in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006
33.Further, the liberty is given to the appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 to prove his case for enhancement the compensation based on evidence.
34.Therefore, the case is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to re-examination the issue afresh while giving liberty to the claimant appellant in C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 while preserving the rights of the claimant to initiate appropriate proceedings in proper forum in accordance with law.
35.The Deputy Commissioner is requested to dispose the claim petition afresh within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
36.Accordingly, both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 22 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc by way of remand. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.11.2019 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No jen To
1.The Workmen Compensation Commissioner, The Deputy Commissioner of labour, Coimbatore.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
Jen _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 23 of 24 C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and etc Pre-Delivery Common Judgment in C.M.A.No.3392 of 2006 and C.M.A.No.434 of 2007 and M.P.No. of 2006 20.11.2019 _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No 24 of 24