High Court · 2025

C.M.A.No.616 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.12.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHIC.M.A.No.616 of 2023 andC.M.P.No.5102 of 2023E.Pugalenthi ... Appellant / 2nd respondent Vs.1. Mala2. Rosan Robert3.Minor Reshma Jenifer(rep. by mother / natural guardian / 1st respondent)4. Vellaisamy ... Respondents 1 to 3 / petitioners 4th respondent / 1st respondent PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to set aside the award passed in W.C.No.38 of 2019 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore, dated 04.11.2022.For Appellant: Mr.B. KumarasamyFor Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.S. SaravananFor Respondent No.4: Mr. K. BalasubramaniyamJUDGMENTThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Principal Employer / 2nd respondent in the Workmen's compensation case against the Award, dated 04.11.2022 passed in W.C.No.38 of 2019 on the file of the 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.616 of 2023Deputy Commissioner for Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore. 2. Parties are referred herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal. 3. According to the petitioners / claimants, the husband of the first claimant Tr.Vinod was working as Centering Worker and on the relevant date, under the instructions of the first respondent he had been staying at Thokalti, Kothagiri and doing Centring work at the house of the 2nd respondent, viz., Pughalenthi. On 05.07.2018 at about 3.15 pm, when the said Vinod was standing on the oil barrel and doing Centring work as no person was available to hold the oil barrel, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to Kothagiri Government Hospital. Thereafter, he was referred to Coimbatore Government Hospital for further treatment and on 07.07.2018 he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was not provided with sufficient safety equipment while being deployed for centring work. The respondents are responsible for the death of Tr.Vinod. At the relevant point of time, the deceased was 39 years of age and he was getting the daily wages at Rs.800/- per day and monthly income of Rs.20,800/- from the first respondent. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.616 of 20234. Per contra, on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the deceased Vinod was employed as a Watchman during day time by the 2nd respondent and he did not know as to why he did stand on oil barrel. Only on the negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred. On the relevant day no centring work was undertaken. There is no employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the deceased. 5. Whereas on behalf of the second respondent it has been stated that the first respondent has taken the contract work and as per the Agreement, dated 15.11.2017 entered into between the first and second respondent that if any accident occurred in respect of any construction work, the first respondent is responsible for the same. The deceased did not know the centring work and because of his negligence he fell down from the oil barrel and died. Therefore, the second respondent is not responsible to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. 6. At trial to substantiate the petition details, the first claimant has examined herself as PW.1 and six documents have been marked. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report; Ex.P3 is the copy of the postmortem certificate of Vinod; Ex.P6 is the School Transfer Certificate of the deceased Vinod. On the first respondent side neither oral evidence is let in nor any document was marked. Whereas on the side of the 2nd respondent, 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.616 of 20232nd respondent has examined himself as RW1 and one Omprakash has been examined as RW2 and three documents have been marked. Ex.R2 is the copy of the Agreement entered into between the first and second respondent. 7. PW.1 has fled the proof affidavit and line with the details of her claim petition. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. The same reads that “vdJ mg;gh tpNdhj; nrd;lhpq; Ntiy nra;J tUfpwhh;. vdJ mg;gh fle;j %d;w thuq;fshf fhd;l;uhf;lh; nts;isr;rhkp vd;gtUld; Nfhj;jfphp fl;lngl;L gFjpapy; njhfyl;b vd;w ,lj;jpy; nrd;idia Nrh;e;j GfNoe;jp vd;gtUf;Fk; nrhe;jkhd tPl;by; nrd;bhpq; Ntiyf;F nrd;W mq;NfNa jq;fp Ntiy nra;J tUfpwhh;. vdJ mg;gh khiy 3 kzpastpy; Mapy; Nguy; Nky; epd;W Ntiy nra;J nfhz;bUe;j NghJ mUfpy; Nguiy jhq;fp gpbf;f cjtp Ml;fs; ahUk; ,y;yhjjhy; Nguy; gpbkhdk; ,y;yhky; ftpo;e;jjhy; mjd; Nky; epd;W Ntiy nra;J nfhz;bUe;j vdJ mg;gh fPNo tpOe;jjhy; mtUf;F jiyapy; gyj;j fhak; Vw;gl;L fhjpy; ,uj;jk; te;jjhy; mtiu Nghf;Ftz;bapy;; Nfhj;jfphp muR kUj;Jtkidf;F ...”8. During the cross examination of RW.1 / 2nd respondent he would state that “… Nkw;gb gzpapil tpgj;jpy; ,we;j eghpd; ngah; tpNdhj; vd;gJ njhpAkh vd;why; tpgj;J eilngw;w Njjpad;W njhpahJ gpd;dh; njhpAk;. .... Nkw;gb tpgj;J Fwpj;J ahh; %yk; mwpe;J 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.616 of 2023nfhz;Bh;fs; vd;why; nts;isr;rhkp vd;gth; vdf;F njhiyNgtp %yk; jfty; njhptpj;jhh;…”.9. From the cumulative analysis of testimony of PW1 and RW1, read with Ex.P1 – the First Information Report, it is pellucid that the husband of the first claimant (PW1), on 05.07.2008 while he was standing on a Oil Barrel fell down at the construction site thereby met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries on 07.07.2008. 10. As per Ex.P6 - School Transfer Certificate age of the deceased is taken as 38 years. PW.1 would state that her husband deceased Vinod was earning Rs.800/- as daily wages per month he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.20,800/-. To substantiate the same, no document was marked by the claimants. But, however based on the Employees Compensation Act Section 4 (1B) Central Government Standing Order S.O.1258 (E), dated 31.05.2010 his monthly income was fixed at Rs.8,000/- and the compensation was awarded at Rs.7,58,240/-. 11. From the evidence of PW1 and RW1 it is made clear that the 2nd respondent / RW1 was the Principal employer. As per Ex.R2 - agreement, the first respondent is the Contractor and the second respondent is the Principal employer. The said details have been conceded by RW1 during 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.616 of 2023his cross examination. In this regard for better understanding, it is relevant to extract Section 12(1) & (2) of the Employee's Compensation Act:-“(1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any employee employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that employee had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from or proceedings are taken against the principal, then, in the application of this Act, references to the principal shall be substituted for references to the employer, except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the employee under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under sub-section (1), he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the employee could have recovered compensation, and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the employee could have recovered compensation, and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.”12. It is made clear that the deceased was working at the construction site of Pughalenthi under the Contractor / 1st respondent and in the course of employment, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Vinod. He was 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.616 of 2023undoubtedly engaged as a labourer by the Contractor. In fact, the Contractor was carrying out the work at the instance of principal employer.13. The main object of Section 12 of the Act is to secure compensation to the employees who are engaged through the Contractor by the principal employer. For its ordinary business, which in the ordinary course, the principal employer is supposed to carry out through its own servants while imposing liability on the principal employer. In this context, Section 12(2) of Employees’ Compensation Act comes into play and provides that the principal employer will be entitled to be indemnified by the Contractor in case, the principal employer is required to pay compensation to the employees of the Contractor.14. The compensation was awarded at Rs.7,58,240/-, and the authority granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses under the Employees’ Compensation Act. In these circumstances, the principal employer is liable to pay the compensation and he is entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, namely the first respondent. 15. Based on the aforesaid observations and discussions, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings of the learned Authority. This Court also does not find any good reason to upset the 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.616 of 2023findings of the learned Authority. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 16. In view of the aforestated narrative, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the Award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore, dated 04.11.2022 made in W.C.No.38 of 2019 stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 18.12.2025NCC: Yes/NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet:Yes / NotrpTo1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore.2.The Section Officer,V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.616 of 2023R. KALAIMATHI, J.,trpCMA.No.616 of 2023andCMP.No.5102 of 202318.12.20259/9