SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Workmen’s Compensation case lordship s.Vaithiyanathan j full order

by ·

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A. No.3606 of 2019 and
C.M.P. No.20815 of 2019

Nazar Akthar … Appellant

vs.

1.Marimuthu
2.Ayyammal …Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 26.8.2016 in W.C. No.178 of 2014 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Chennai - 6.

    For Appellant   :   Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan

    For Respondent  :   Mr.D.Sivachandran for R1 and R2

J U D G M E N T

The appellant has come forward with the present appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Chennai - 6 dated 26.08.2016 made in W.C. No.178 of 2014.


2. It is not in dispute that a 22 years old young boy met with an accident on 26.5.2007 in the course of and out of employment and a case has been registered. As the legal representatives of the deceased have not produced any document with regard to the wages drawn by the employee, the minimum wages applicable on the date of accident, has been taken into account and a compensation of Rs.2,93,502/- has been awarded.

3. Though several facts can be narrated, this court is not inclined to go with the same, as in the light of Section 30 and 30A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which was prevalent on the date of accident, the amount has got to be deposited, without which, appeal cannot be entertained. 

4. In this case, no amount has been deposited and it is not known, as to how the Registry has numbered the civil miscellaneous appeal, without insisting on deposit, which is a condition precedent. The Madras High Court in a case pertaining to Payment of Gratuity Act in its judgment in Onward Trading Co., Madras vs. Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Madras, reported in 1990 LLR 28 (MHC), had clearly held that without deposit of any amount, the Appellate Authority cannot entertain any appeal.

5. Similarly, in the present case on hand, as there is no deposit, the appeal stands rejected and the Commissioner  for Workmen's Compensation - I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Chennai - 6, is expected to take steps for revenue recovery, realise the amount together with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident, till it is actually paid and such exercise, shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

6. The provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act uses the word "employer", who may be a direct employer or an immediate employer or contractor and any person falling under these categories, against whom adverse findings have been rendered for payment of compensation, shall be bound to deposit the amount before filing an appeal, as the wording under Section 30 and 30-A of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 used the word "employer" to deposit the amount and the condition of deposit is a precedent one before filing an appeal. At the same time, Registry would have been justified in numbering an appeal, if an Insurance company has not deposited any amount, as the insurance company is not an employer, as they merely step into the shoes of the employer only for payment of compensation in terms of the policy taken.

7. Hence, Registry is directed to ensure that deposit is insisted, if any person is falling within the term "employer", namely, employer or direct employer or an immediate employer or contractor for numbering the appeal. The insurance company will never be an immediate employer or contractor in terms of the welfare legislation. The Act refers to the word "employer" and not the insurance company and there is no privity of contract between the person employed and the insurance company to bring the employer - employee relationship between the injured/deceased and the insurance company, as, at no point of time, the injured/deceased would have provided with employment by the insurance company.

With the above observation, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

                          11.02.2020

Index : Yes/No
Asr

To
The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation – I
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Chennai – 6.

Note:

Registry is directed to circulate a copy of this order to the concerned Sections of Principal Seat and the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court so that the concerned Appeal Examiners will number the appeal only after deposit, in case the appeal is filed by an employer mentioned under the Act

You may also like...