✦ High Court of India · 27 Mar 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 27 Mar 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

27 Mar 2025

Bench

M.DHANDAPANI

Length

1,150 words

Acts & Sections

Employees compensation Act 1923 Indian Penal Code §288 Indian Penal Code §8 Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act 2013

WP No. 8632 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27-03-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIWP No. 8632, 8636, 8633 and 8634 OF 2025and WMP NO. 9656, 9657 OF 2025, 9658, 9659, 9654 OF 2025, 9655, 9660 and 9661 OF 2025M/s.Dindigul Thalappakatti Biriyani RestaurantRepresented By Its Authorised Signatory, Plot No 18, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sri Sowdeswari Nagar, Okkiyampettai, Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600097.Petitioner in all the petitionsVs1. The Joint Commissioner Of Labour-IIEmployees Compensation Court II, Chennai 600006.2. V.Vedhachalam3.M/s.OMR TransportProp D.Ravi, S/o.Dhanapal, No.5/21 Bharathiyar Stretet, Okkiyam Pettai, Chennai 600097.Respondents in W.P.No.8632 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8632 of 20251. The Joint Commissioner Of Labour-IIEmployees Compensation Court II, Chennai 600006.2.K.Gandhimathi3.M/s.OMR TransportProp D.Ravi, S/o.Dhanapal, No.5/21 Bharathiyar Stretet, Okkiyam Pettai, Chennai 600097.Respondents in W.P.no.8633 of 20251. The Joint Commissioner Of Labour-IIEmployees Compensation Court II, Chennai 600006.2.N.Manimala3.M/s.OMR TransportProp D.Ravi, S/o.Dhanapal, No.5/21 Bharathiyar Stretet, Okkiyam Pettai, Chennai 600097.Respondent(s) in WP No. 8634 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8632 of 20251. The Joint Commissioner Of Labour-IIEmployees Compensation Court II, Chennai 600006.2.K.Nagammal3.M/s.OMR TransportProp D.Ravi, S/o.Dhanapal, No.5/21 Bharathiyar Stretet, Okkiyam Pettai, Chennai 600097.....Respondents in W.P.No.8636 of 2025WP No. 8632 of 2025 : The writ petition has been filed under Article under 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, Calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in I.A.No. 190/2023 dated 04.03.2024 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and pass.WP No. 8633 of 2025: The writ petition has been filed under Article under 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, Calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in I.A.No. 189/2023 dated 04.03.2024 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and pass.WP No. 8634 of 2025: The writ petition has been filed under Article under 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, Calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in I.A.No. 191/2023 dated 04.03.2024 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and pass.WP No. 8636 of 2025 : The writ petition has been filed under Article under 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, Calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in I.A.No. 188/2023 dated 04.03.2024 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and pass.For Petitioner(s):MR. S. Karthick In all the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8632 of 2025Sr. CounselFOR Vijayan Subramanian (In all the petitions)W.P.'sFor Respondent(s):MR. R.MuralidharanFOR R2 MR. K. Surendran, AGP FOR RR1 R3 – Not ready notice (In all the petitions)In all the W.P.sCOMMON ORDERThese writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in I.A.No. 190/2023, 189/2023, 191/2023 and 188/2023 dated 04.03.2024. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had engaged the services of the 3rd respondent, who is in the field of sewage tank cleaning to clean its private sewage tank at one of its restaurants at Thoraipakkam, OMR. The petitioner further states the 3rd respondent had sent its machinsied suction truck along with its driver, cleaner and other works to clean the sewage tank on 19.01.2016. After sucking up the water, one of the employees of the 3rd respondent, namely Velumurugan fell inside the sewage tank. The other persons namely Rajesh, Kumar, Saravanan tried to help the said person, getting into the tank and inhaled the poisonous gas and fell unconscious. Unfortunately, they lost their lives. Based on the complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer, Thoraipakkam, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.62/2016 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8632 of 2025dated 19.01.2016 on the file of J-11 Kannagi Nagar Police station for the offences under Section 288, 304 IPC and Section 8 of Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The petitioner company had given a one-time solatium a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- vide a Demand Draft No.026270 dated 27.01.2016 drawn on HDFC Bank, Mylapore Branch to the dependents of the deceased persons as per the order of the Supreme Court. 3. After investigation, the Police registered a case as against 5 persons and filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and the same was taken on file as CC. No.1267 of 2016. Aggrieved by the said CC, the Management has filed a petition to quash the CC. After a period of seven years, the second respondent herein had filed an application under Section 10 of the Employees compensation Act, 1923 before the first respondent praying for the relief of payment of compensation of a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- under the Employees compensation Act and condone delay application was also filed in in I.A.No.190, 189, 191 & 188/2023 and the same was allowed. To quash the said order, these writ petitions have been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petitions have been filed solely on the ground that there was settlement between the petitioner and the deceased employee families before the Corporation officials and some of the legal heirs of the deceased employee, have not arrayed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8632 of 2025as party before the trial Court. Even then the first respondent allowed the condone delay of 2055 days is contrary to law. The second respondent has not even mentioned the fact that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Safari Karamchari Andolam and others and Union of India and others. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this Court, without interfering with the impugned order, permit the petitioner to let in documentary evidence and to canvass all the points before the first respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent have not raised any objection in this regard.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited request sought for by the petitioner, this Court without interfering with the impugned order, directs the first respondent to allow the petitioner to submit the documentary evidence as well as the necessary witnesses before it within the stipulated time as fixed. Thereafter, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in the main case, after providing opportunity to either parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8632 of 2025of this order.8. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27-03-2025RliIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8632 of 2025M.DHANDAPANI J.rliToThe Joint Commissioner Of Labour-iiEmployees Compensation Court Ii, Chennai 600006. WP No. 8632, 8636, 8633 and 8634 OF 202527-03-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8632 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8632 of 2025

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Employees compensation Act 1923