C.S. Karnan, J.@mdashThe appellants/respondents have preferred the present appeal against the order passed in W.C. No. 167 of 2006, on the file of Commissioner of Workmen''s Compensation, Madurai. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The applicants, who are the wife, minor and-mother of the deceased Jayapandian have preferred the claim in W.C. No. 167 of 2006, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,05,820 from the respondents, for the death of the said Jayapandian in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment under the third respondent. It was submitted that the deceased Jayapandian was working as a contract worker under the employment of the third respondent and that on 23.4.2006, when the deceased was attending to a defect in the electrical post No. 266 in East Street at Lalapuram Village, after the main electricity supply was switched off by his co-worker C. Jayaram, there was a sudden upsurge of electric current and due to this the (deceased) Jayapandian was electrocuted and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 33 years and was getting a monthly income of Rs. 4,000 and also bonus from the third respondent. Hence, the petitioners who are dependants on the income of the deceased have filed the claim against the first, second and third respondents. The first respondent is the Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K. Pudur, Madurai; the second respondent is the Assistant Executive Officer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallikudi, Tirumangalm Taluk, Madurai District and the third respondent is the Junior Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallikudi, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
2. The first respondent, in his counter, which was adopted by the second and third respondents has submitted that the deceased Jayapandian had not worked under them as a permanent employee, and that contract workers employed by them cannot avail the facilities offered to permanent employees and that as the date of occurrence of the accident, i.e., 23.4.2006 was a Sunday and a holiday, and as the deceased had done the work on his own accord, without seeking permission of the respondent, the accident had not been caused during the course of his employment under the third respondent. It was submitted that as the deceased had also not taken the precaution of wearing hand gloves and hip belt while doing repair work, the accident had been caused only due to his negligence and as such, the respondents cannot be held liable to pay compensation. The averments in the claim regarding age and income of the deceased was also not admitted. It was submitted that the petitioners should prove that they are the legal-heirs of the deceased and they are dependants on the income of the deceased through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.
3. On the petitioners side, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and thirteen documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P13, piz., Ex. P1-copy of F.I.R., Ex. P2-copy of post-mortem report, Ex. P3-letter written by respondent showing that the deceased would be made as permanent employee, Ex. P4-copy of family ration card, Ex. P5-I.D. Card issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Ex. P6-I.D, Card issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Workers Welfare Board, Ex. P7-lawyer''s notice, Ex. P8-copy of acknowledgement card, Ex. P9-copy of letter written by Electricity Board regarding compensation, Ex. P10-copy of membership receipt, Ex. P11.-order passed by the Inspector of Workers, Virudhunagar regarding permanency of job, Ex. P12-appeal petition, Ex. P13-order of High Court. On the respondent''s side, A. Zakir Hussain, the Assistant Engineer, T.N.E.B, Kallikudi was examined as R.W.1.
4. The learned Commissioner of Labour, framed four issues for consideration in the case, viz.,
(i) Was the deceased V.M. Jayapandian employed as a ''worker'' as per the rules laid down in the Workmen Compensation Act?
(ii) If so, did he die due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment?
(iii) If so, what is the quantum of compensation which he is entitled to get? and
(iv) Who is liable to pay the compensation?
5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that the (deceased) Jayapandian was working as a ''contract worker'' under the third respondent and that on 23.4.2006, when he was carrying out repairs in the electric post No. 266, in East Street, Lalapuram Village, he had been electrocuted. In support of her evidence, she had marked Ex. P1 to P13.
6. R.W.1, had adduced evidence that the first petitioner''s husband, viz., V. Jayapandian was working as a contract labourer and that he was paid daily wages only for the days that he attended to work and that he was entrusted only with the manual work, viz., digging of soil to facilitate erection or electric posts and that he was not authorized to carry out any electrical work. He deposed that the deceased was not qualified to work as an electrician and that he had carried out the electrical work on a Sunday, which was a holiday, without getting authorization from the respondents and without their knowledge and died while carrying out such work. He deposed that the deceased had not been made a permanent worker and as such, he cannot be termed as a ''worker'' as per the Workmen Compensation Act and as such, the respondents cannot beheld liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased Jayapandian. During cross-examination, he had admitted that it was possible that electricity disruptions might occur on Sunday also and that electrical service work can be carried out by the workers of their Electricity Department only on getting authorization letter from their superiors. He had also admitted that he was not aware of whether the deceased had died due to electrocution or died due to falling down from the electricity post.
7. The learned Commissioner of Labour opined that the respondents had failed to prove that the deceased had not been sent to carry out repair work through documentary evidence. The learned Commissioner further observed from scrutiny of postmortem report marked as Ex. P2, that the death of the (deceased) Jayapandi had been caused due to the fall of the deceased Jayapandian from an great height and due to electric shock. Hence the learned Commissioner on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held the deceased was employed as a ''worker'' and that he had died in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment under the respondent.
8. On scrutiny of Ex. P2, it is seen that the deceased was aged 34 years at the time of accident. The Commissioner on observing that no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the deceased held that the daily wage of the deceased was Rs. 117 as per Minimum Wages Act mentioned in R.C. No. 34767/2005/E2, dated 2.7.2005], Section 63 for ''Electrical Assistant'' and hence held the monthly income of the deceased Jayapandian as Rs. 3,042. On adopting a multiplier of 199.40, the learned Commissioner of Labour awarded a sum of Rs. 3,03,287 as compensation to the petitioners under the head of ''loss of income (3042 x 50/100 x 199.40); Rs. 2,500 was awarded towards funeral expenses. In total, the learned Commissioner of Labour awarded a sum of Rs. 3,05,787 as compensation to the petitioners and directed the respondent to pay the said sum within 30 days from the date of receipt of its order, failing which, the respondent was directed to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of deposit.
9. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Commissioner of Labour, the respondents/The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K. Pudur, Madurai; The Assistant Executive Officer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallikudi, Tirumangalm Taluk, Madurai District; The Junior Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kallikudi, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, have preferred the present appeal.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the Court below failed to see that the deceased worker was not working on the rolls of the appellants and that the deceased had carried out the service work without getting any authorization. It was contended that once the relationship of employer and employee has been disputed and not proved by the alleged employee, the further question of calculating the compensation would not at all arise. It was further contended that the sum of Rs. 117 fixed a daily wages was excessive and that the multiplier of 199.40 adopted was also erroneous. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.
11. The learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the deceased Jayapandian was engaged by the Junior Engineer, T.N.E.B, to set-right an electrical fault at the electric post No. 266, at Lalapuram Village, as per his direction, the deceased switched off the main electric supply with the help of co-worker and while he was doing his job, due to sudden supply of power, he was electrocuted. In order, to prove the same, the F.I.R and post-mortem certificate were marked, stating that he had died during the course of his employment. To prove that the deceased was an employee, he had marked his I.D. card issued by the Electricity Employees Association. Therefore, on the basis of the age of the deceased, income of the deceased, the compensation amount had been assessed by the learned Commissioner of Labour. Further, the deceased had filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking permanent employment status with the respondent-Board. Therefore, the Tribunal had well considered the matter and rendered judgment, after framing four issues.
12. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the learned Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding liability and quantum of compensation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order..
13. This Court directs the appellants/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, as fixed by the learned Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not deposited already.
14. After such a deposit being made, it is open to the applicants/respondents herein to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest, lying in the credit of W.C. No. 167 of 2006, on the file of Commissioner of Workmen''s Compensation, Madurai, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order and after identification of claimants by their Counsel. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in W.C. No. 167 of 2006, on the file of Commissioner of Workmen''s Compensation, Madurai, dated 30.12.2009 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
