M/s.Mano TradersRep. by its Proprietor v. N.PoongothaiW/o. P.Nanjuran

2362 of 20242. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the first respondent in E.C.No.3 of 2020. The deceased, Senthamizhan was engaged by the 3rd respondent to complete a fabrication job of slabs and was paid wages to his workers. The petitioner identified the crane operator to provide support services to the 3rd respondent, but, the petitioner did not have any supervisor control over the crane operator. In fact, the said Senthamizhan is an employee of the 3rd respondent, who was subsequently, engaged by the petitioner and on 17.02.2019, while the petitioner was not on site, an accident occurred due to carelessness of the crane operator, resulting in death. After the death, the parents of the said Senthamizhan, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have filed a claim petition in E.C.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Section 22(7) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

Although the petitioner received notice, he believed the crane was insured with the 4th respondent insurance company and that there was no liability, so he did not appear before the Labour Court.3. However, in the absence of the insurance police and since the accident took place at the petitioner’s site, the Labour Court fastened the entire liability __________Page3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2362 of 2024against the petitioner vide order dated 20.04.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.52 of 2023 to set aside the ex parte order. However, the same was dismissed on the grounds that it was not an ex parte order, but rather an order on merits, making the filing of an Interlocutory Application unsustainable. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although notice was received by the petitioner, he was unable to approach counsel to conduct the case before the Labour Court.

Consequently, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, which was subsequently dismissed. Hence, he prayed for appropriate orders.5. Upon perusal of the entire records, it is seen that while entertaining the Civil Revision Petition, this Court granted an interim stay on the condition that the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs.4,54,280/- to the credit of E.C.No.3 of 2020. However, the said conditional order was not complied with and the stay order was therefore vacated by this Court. It is further seen that there is no valid insurance between the 3rd respondent and the 5th respondent. __________Page4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2362 of 20246. Admittedly, the accident took place at the petitioner’s site and after analysing the entire evidence, the Labour Court passed as Award as against the petitioner. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the Award, he has to prefer an appeal.