The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle vs Pandiammal

T. Mathivanan, J.—Challenge is made in this appeal, to the award of Rs. 3,05,922/-, dated 20.01.2003 and made in W.C. No. 316 of

2001, on the file of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, by the Respondent in the claim petition.

The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be summarized as under:

The deceased Rajasekar is the son of the Respondent herein. He is a Diplomo Holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and in such

capacity, he had been working under the Appellant/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as a contract labour at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day towards

daily wages. That on 14.06.2001, at about 02.30 p.m., while he was working for the installation of a new electric pole in between pole Nos.

VN29 and VN30 in surveyor colony-Mattuthavani road, got electrocuted and died instantaneously during the course of his employment under

Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai. At the time of his death, he was aged about 24 years and was

getting a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month and hence, the Respondent being his mother had filed a claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of

Labour for Workmen Compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 3,27,705/- towards compensation. The Appellant/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board being

the Respondent in the claim petition had contested the claim on various grounds.

On appreciation of the evidence and considering the other materials available on record, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for

Workmen Compensation, Madurai had proceeded to pass an award of Rs. 3,05,922/- directing the Appellant/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to

pay the award amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of the accident. Hence this appeal.

Heard both sides.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant while advancing his argument has submitted that the deceased cannot be characterised and

brought within the ambit to Section 2(n) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 to define him as a workman. Secondly, he has also submitted

that the Appellant board being the principal employer is not liable to pay any compensation, under the provision of the Act to the Respondent.

Thirdly, he has also submitted that the finding of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai that the death

arose out of and during the course of employment of the Appellant board is not sustainable under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923.

During the course of his argument he has also drawn the attention of this Court to the substantial questions of law which are formulated on the

grounds of appeal. It is pertinent to note here that the appeal has been admitted on two substantial questions of law.

1) Was there any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?

2) Whether the quantum of compensation fixed on the basis of the daily wages at Rs. 80/- is sustainable both in law and on facts?

The learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the deceased was only a contract labour and hence Electricity Board is not at all liable to

pay compensation. This issue was also considered by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai and

decided in favour of the Respondent.

It is obvious note to here that the Respondent in his counter statement has stated that the engagement of the deceased was as a contract labour

and that his death was occurred on account of electric shock, when he was working on 14.06.2001. When there is specific admission on the part

of the Appellant-Board, the issue that there was no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the Appellant-Board will not

arise.

It may be appropriate to refer the decision in Mahmood v. Balwant Singh reported in 1979 (39) FLR 417 (A11.HC): 1980 L IC 300, in which

it is observed that:

Payment on daily wages is matter of convenience and mutual adjustment between worker and employer. To cover a person under the definition of

workman his nature of employment is the decisive factor and not its duration hence 6 a person even though employed on daily wages for a single

day is workman under the Act.

On coming to the instant case on hand, it is explicitely admitted by the Respondent that the deceased was working as a contract labour under

the Appellant-Board and therefore, the deceased being the contract labour will definitely come under the definition of Workman as defined u/s 2(n)

of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923.

Further, it is also important to point out here that the Respondent had examined herself as P.W.1 and during the course of her examination

Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. As rightly observed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, Exs.A4

and A5 would go to show that the deceased was a Diplomo Holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and the Transfer Certificate under

Ex.A4, reveals that his date of birth is 08.11.1975 and hence at the time of his death his age was about 25 years. On the basis of Ex.A6, Circular

of the Secretary, TNEB, the schedule of rates of wages fixed by the PWD, has to be followed.

The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai has fixed the daily wage of the deceased at Rs. 80/-and

therefore, his monthly income was fixed at Rs. 2,400/-. Since the deceased was aged about 25 years, the age and factor was fixed at Rs. 216.91

as per Schedule 4 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 and on that basis, the quantum was arrived at Rs. 2,60,292/- (Rs. 2400X50/100

X 216.91=Rs.2,60,292/-).

Besides this, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai has also determined that as per Section (4-

A)(3)(a) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, the applicant is entitled to get interest at 12% p.a and accordingly from 14.06.2001 to

31.02.2001, the interest at the rate of 12% p.a has been calculated at Rs. 43,130/-.

Besides this, as per Section 4(4) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act (Amended Act 46/2000), it has been determined that the Respondent

is entitled to get Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral expenses.

The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, has ultimately determined that the Respondent being the mother of

the deceased is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3,05,922/- (Rs. 2,60,292 + Rs. 2,500 + Rs. 43,130/-).

On careful analysation of the materials available on record and on considering the award passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of

Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest calculated by the learned Deputy

Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai from 14.06.2001 ie., from the date of incident is not correct as per Section (4-A)

(3)(a) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 and the interest at the rate of 12% p.a shall have to be calculated 30 days after the incident.

In the result, the award of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation a sum of Rs. 2,60,292/- and funeral

expenses at Rs. 2,500/- as per Section 4(4) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 is confirmed. But the interest which was calculated from

the date of incident ie., from 14.06.2001 is set aside. The interest at the rate of 12; p.a as per the proviso to Section (4-A)(3)(a) shall have to be

calculated 30 days after the accident.

With this observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of.

No order as to costs.