AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The appellant/second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the order passed in W.C. No. 61 of 2005, on
the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The applicant, who is the wife of the (deceased) Muthu, has preferred the claim in W.C. No. 61 of 2005, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.
1,33,548/- from the opposite parties, for the death of the said Muthu in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment of the said
Muthu under the first opposite party. It was submitted that the (deceased) Muthu was working as a sweeper in the limestone division at Manjolai
Estate belonging to the first opposite party for 25 years and that he was a permanent employee, whose identification number was TN667/1451.
While so, on 05.10.2004, at about 11 a.m., when the (deceased) Muthu was doing his work as a Sweeper in the limestone division, he
experienced heart pain and was admitted at the Manjolai Estate Hospital, wherein treatment was given, but in spite of treatment, the (deceased)
Muthu died. It was submitted that the (deceased) Muthu had suffered heart pain only because of the extremely cold conditions prevailing in the first
opposite parties concern. At the time of his death, the (deceased) was aged 53 years and was getting a daily wage of Rs. 72/-. Hence, the
applicant has filed the claim against the first and second opposite party, as the first opposite party had taken a policy of insurance for the workers
of his firm with the second opposite party.
The first respondent, in his counter has submitted that on 05.10.2004, at about 10 a.m., in the morning, when the (deceased) Muthu was
working as a Sweeper in the first respondent''s firm, the relative of the deceased, viz., Jayachandran had informed him that the (deceased) Muthu
had experienced heart pain and that the said Jayachandran had taken the (deceased) Muthu to the hospital through ambulance and that the doctors
on examining the said Muthu had pronounced him a dead. It was submitted that after postmortem was done on the body of the deceased, the
doctors had certified that the said Muthu had died of ''cardiac arrest''. It was submitted that the deceased had not died due to physical stress or
due to the weather conditions prevailing on the first respondent''s firm and had only died due to natural causes. It was submitted that thousands of
workers had been employed at the first respondent''s firm and that nobody had experienced any work stress or been affected by the cold
conditions prevailing in the first respondent''s plant. It was submitted that regular break times for lunch and weekly holidays were given to the
employees and as such, the contention that the deceased had died due to extreme cold conditions prevailing in the work spot was without any
basis. It was submitted that as the death of the deceased had not been caused due to his work stress, but only due to natural causes, the first
respondent cannot be held liable to pay any compensation.
The second respondent in his counter has submitted that the petitioner has to prove that she is the legal-heir of the (deceased) Muthu through
documentary evidence. The averments in the claim regarding the income and occupation of the (deceased) Muthu was also not admitted. The
averments in the claim that the (deceased) Muthu had died due to stress and strain, while doing his work in the employment of the first opposite
party was also not admitted. It was submitted that the work of a sweeper cannot be termed as hard labour and that there was no probability of
stress and strain being caused in the said work. The contentions in the claim that the (deceased) was affected due to extreme cold conditions
prevailing in the work spot was also not admitted. It was submitted that the (deceased) had died only due to natural causes and that there was no
nexus between the nature of work being done by him and his death and hence, the second opposite party cannot be held liable to pay any
compensation.
On the applicant''s side, two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked as Exs. P1, P2 and P3, viz., Ex. P1-death certificate
of Muthur, Ex. P2-copy of postmortem report and Ex. P3-salary slip. On the first opposite party''s side, one witness was examined and three
documents were marked as Exs. R1, R2 and R3, viz., Ex. R1-copy of extract of attendance register for the month of October 2004, Ex. R2-copy
of extract of salary register for the month of October 2004 and Ex. R3, the outpatient I.D. card (series) issued to Muthu for the period from
02.01.1988 to 05.10.2004.
On the interim application filed by the applicant, the first opposite party had furnished the copy of the accident register pertaining to the
deceased and the copy of letter sent by the first opposite party''s firm to the insurance company, claiming compensation for the death of the
(deceased) Muthu.
The petitioner, Tmt. Lakshmi had adduced evidence that her husband, the (late) Muthu had worked in the first respondent''s limestone division
for the last 22 years as a sweeper and that on 05.10.2004, when her husband was working in the first opposite party''s firm, he had experienced
chest pain and that he was admitted at Manjolai Estate Hospital, wherein he was declared dead. She deposed that subsequent to this postmortem
of her husband''s body was carried out at Ambasamudram Government Hospital. She deposed that her husband was also engaged in doing other
work besides that of a sweeper in the first opposite party''s firm and that her husband was not suffering from any form of sickness prior to his death
and that he also did not have any bad habits. She deposed that her husband had sustained chest pain only due to the hard work he had carried out
at the first opposite party''s firm. In support of her evidence, she had marked Ex. P1, death certificate of her husband; Ex. P2-copy of postmortem
report and Ex. P3-salary slip. She further deposed that the said accident had been registered in the accident register and that the first opposite
party had also sent a claim to the second opposite party demanding compensation from the second opposite party for her husband''s death.
P.W. 2, Thiru. Thambiraja had adduced evidence that he is also working in the limestone division at Manjolai Estate for the past 15 years and
that his I.D. No. is 4/530 and that he is residing at J.C. No. 62. He deposed that he is acquainted with the deceased for the last 15 years. He
deposed that on 05.10.2004, when the deceased was doing his work as a sweeper, he had sat under the tree and on being questioned, the
(deceased) had told him that he has experienced chest pain and that subsequently, when the (deceased) Muthu was taken to the Manjolai Estate
Hospital, he was declared dead.
R.W. 1, Thiru. F. Johnson, the Junior Assistant in the first respondent''s firm had adduced evidence that the (deceased) Muthu had worked at
their firm from 01.10.2004, to 04.10.2004 and that he had died at his house, and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs. R1, R2 and R3.
On cross-examination, he had deposed that the (deceased) Muthu had died on 05.10.2004, while doing his work and that they had taken steps to
ensure that his family gets compensation form the insurer as per the Workmen''s Compensation Act and that all the necessary details had been
given to the Insurance Company.
The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, on scrutiny of the extract of accident register observed that the (deceased) Muthu had
experienced chest pain while doing his work under the first opposite party at 09.45 a.m., on 05.10.2004 and that it has been stated that ""while
sweeping the line he complains that he was suffering chest pain"". The Tribunal opined that if the (deceased) had died due to natural causes, there
was no necessity to have recorded such statements in the accident register maintained by the first respondent''s firm and that there was no necessity
for the first opposite party to have sent a claim form to the second opposite party and claim compensation for the death of (deceased) Muthu in the
accident. Hence, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour held that such a claim had been sent by the first opposite party as it was found that
the death of (deceased) Muthu had been caused due to the stress and strain experienced by the deceased while carrying out his work. Further, no
doctor had been examined on the part of the first and second respondents to show that the (deceased) Muthu had been a heart patient and had
experienced chest pains at various period of time and as such, the learned Deputy Commissioner, on scrutiny of Ex. P2, postmortem report held
that the deceased Muthu had died of ''cardiac failure'' while doing his work as an employee under the first opposite party and hence, held that the
(deceased) Muthu had died to strain and stress caused to him while doing his work under the course of employment under the first opposite party.
On scrutiny of Ex. P2, it is seen that the deceased was aged 53 years at the time of accident. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, on
holding that the daily wage of the deceased was Rs. 72/- per day, held that the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,872/-, on adopting a
multiplier of 142.68 as was relevant to the age of the deceased, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour awarded a sum of Rs. 1,33,548/- as
compensation to the applicant (Rs. 1,872 x 50/100 x 142.68) and directed the second opposite party, as the insurer of the workers of the first
opposite party to deposit said sum within 30 days from the date of its order.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, the second respondent/Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited has preferred the present appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Commissioner ought to have found that though the postmortem certificate
of the deceased workman was filed as Ex. P2, it had only been mentioned that the deceased had died due to cardiac failure only and the same
cannot be taken as an occupational disease. It was contended that the deceased workman was only a sweeper in the estate and hence, the finding
of the learned Commissioner that he died out of a disease on account of the service condition is totally incorrect, especially considering the fact that
no medical expert had been examined to show that the deceased was suffering from occupational disease and other factors which arose out of the
service condition. It was contended that the deceased was only daily sweeping work which is not hard labour and hence, the same could not have
resulted in stress and strain so as to invite an occupational disease as wrongly perceived by the learned Commissioner. It was contended that the
death of the deceased was due to natural causes, on account of chest pain and other complaints which cannot be attributed to the conditions of
service, the deceased was doing in the course of employment. It was contended that the award passed was excessive and hence, it was prayed to
set-aside the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli and to allow the appeal. The learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has cited the following judgment in support of his contentions:-
Sow. Shantabai Vs. Sahadeo and Another,
Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, Section 3- Liability of compensation - A house - hold lady gave labour contract to a contractor for the
construction of her house - Contractor engaging labourers and one of them sustained injury while doing work - Labourer admitted that he was
employed by the contractor and the contractor paid him wages - No pleading that owner was directly or indirectly connected with the employment
of the worker - Contractor also admitted that engaged the worker and further pleaded that the labourer disobeyed his instructions and he sustained
injuries because of his own negligence-Contractor paid labourer some amount as compensation after he was injured-Whether owner of house and
the contractor jointly and severally liable to pay compensation-Held: no, labourer was in the employment of contractor and owner had no concern
whatsoever with the labourer; contractor alone liable.
The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the deceased was working under the second respondent herein as sweeper. While
so, he had experienced heart pain since he was in the limestone division and as such, the chemicals had affected his health. The highly competent
counsel has further submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, after considering the age, income and occupation of the deceased,
assessed the compensation amount payable to the claimant. In order to prove the death of the (deceased), the F.I.R. and postmortem certificates
were marked. Regarding income, salary chit issued by the employer was marked. Therefore, there is no lacuna in the impugned award passed by
the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Workmen Compensation.
On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the
impugned order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding
liability, employer-employee relationship and that the occurrence had taken place in the course of employment. This Court is of the further view
that the (deceased) was healthy enough to do his work as a sweeper and that only on the date of occurrence of the accident, his death had taken
place during the course of doing his work. The appellant''s contention is that the deceased died due to natural causes and had not died due any
stress in work as alleged. However, the appellant had not proved this contention that the deceased died a natural death through evidence of a
doctor. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
It is seen from Court records that the entire award amount already deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company. Now, it is open to the first
respondent/claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, if any lying in the credit of W.C. No. 61 of 2005, on the
file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, after filing a Memo and after identification of
the claimant by her counsel, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order
passed in W.C. No. 61 of 2005, on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, dated
18.09.2006 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.