P.R. Shivakumar, J.@mdashThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-
II/Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation-II, Chennai 600 006 dated 04.04.2000 made in W.C. No. 20/1999 dismissing the claim of the
appellants herein/applicants made against the respondent herein for compensation for the death of one Jayaraman. The appellants herein preferred
a claim on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II/Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation-II, Chennai-600 006 under Sections
10(1) and 4(A) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act praying for an order directing the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as
compensation together with penalty and interest from the date of accident. The appellants in the claim petition had contended that first appellant
was the wife and the second appellant was the daughter of the deceased Jayaraman; that the said Jayaraman was employed as a machine operator
in the rice mill of the respondent/opposite party and was getting a sum of Rs. 150/- as daily wages; that on 13.07.1998 at about 2.00 p.m. while
he was operating the machine in the rice mill of the respondent/opposite party, he fell on the conveyor belt and consequently died due to shock and
hemorrhage; that the deceased Jayaraman was aged about 32 years at the time of his death and that since he died in an accident that arose out of
and in the course of his employment under the respondent/opposite party, the respondent/opposite party was liable to pay compensation to the
appellants/applicants being the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased Jayaraman. The appellants/applicants had quantified the compensation
and prayed that an order directing the respondent/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation together with penalty and
interest should be passed in their favour.
2. The claim was resisted by the respondent herein/opposite party by filing a counter statement containing the following averments:
a) There was no connection between the deceased Jayaraman and the respondent/opposite party at any point of time. There was no employer-
employee relationship as claimed by the appellants/applicants in their petition. The petition averments to the effect that the Jayaraman met with an
accident arising out of and in the course of employment under the respondent/opposite party is totally false and imaginary one. As there was no
jural relationship of employer and workman between the respondent/opposite party and the deceased Jayaraman, the respondent/opposite party is
not liable to pay any amount as compensation either to the appellants/applicants or to any other person. Apart from the fact that there was no
relationship of employer and employee between the respondent/opposite party and the deceased Jayaraman, the appellants/applicants are not wife
and daughter as claimed by them. They are totally strangers and hence the claim petition preferred by them is liable to be dismissed as not
maintainable.
b) Based on the above said pleadings made in the counter statement, the respondent herein/opposite party had prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
3. The lower authority namely, Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation-II (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chen-nai-600 006
conducted an enquiry in which, including the first appellant, two witnesses were examined as A.W.1 and A.W.2 and seven documents were
marked as Ex. A1 to A7 on the side of the appellants herein/applicants, whereas respondent herein/opposite party examined himself as the sole
witness (R.W.1) and marked Ex. R1 as the sole document on his side.
4. At the conclusion of enquiry, upon a consideration of the evidences, the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation-II (Deputy
Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai-600 006 came to the conclusion that the petition claiming compensation for the death of Jayaraman was not
maintainable as the appellants/applicants were not able to prove their relationship with the deceased and in tune with the said finding, the claim
petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
5. Aggrieved by and challenging the said order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation-II (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-
II), Chennai-600006 dated 04.04.2000 made in W.C. No. 20/1999, the appellants herein/applicants have brought-forth this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act on various grounds set out in the memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. At the time of admission, the following questions were framed as substantial questions of law involved in this civil miscellaneous appeal:-
1. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation can totally reject the marriage fee receipt (Ex. A1) and its counterfoil (Ex.A4),
which has been produced through the temple authorities (A.W.2)?
2. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation can dismiss the claim petition for not marking the legal heir certificate while the
claimant proved the marriage with the deceased by examining the temple authorities?
7. This court heard the submissions made by Mr. A. Shanmugaraj, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.G. Rajan, learned counsel for the
respondent and paid its anxious consideration to the same. The materials available on record were also perused.
8. An appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act shall lie against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation not on a
question of fact but only on a substantial question of law. During the hearing of this civil miscellaneous appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that though the appellants had raised a substantial question of law in the grounds of appeal regarding the power of Commissioner for
Workmen''s Compensation to decide the question of maintainability of the claim petition without deciding the question whether the deceased was a
workman under the respondent/opposite party, the said question was not framed as a substantial question of law at the time of admission of the
civil miscellaneous appeal and that hence the same has got to be framed as third substantial question of law. Upon considering the said submission
made by the learned counsel for the appellants, this court deemed it fit to accept the same and frame the third substantial question of law as
follows:-
3. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation can dismiss the claim petition as not maintainable on the ground that the
appellants/applicants have not proved them to be the dependents of the deceased person without deciding the question whether the deceased was
an employee under the respondent/opposite party and whether he died in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?
9. Regarding the third substantial question of law framed, the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party would contend that the question of
entertaining a claim petition would arise on three circumstances: 1) when the opposite party denies the relationship of employer and employee
between himself and the deceased, 2) when the opposite party denies the accident having arisen out of and in the course of employment though the
relationship of employer and workman is admitted and 3) the question of quantum of compensation alone is in dispute. It is the further contention of
the learned counsel for the respondent that in the last two type of cases, the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation has got power to go
into the disputed question but in the first case, the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation cannot go into the question of jural relationship of
employer and workman without deciding the locus standi of the applicants to make the claim and the maintainability of the claim petition as the said
question would go to the root of the cases itself.
10. the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the liability of the employer to pay compensation does not depend
upon a claim being made and that as per Section 4(A)(1) the compensation should be paid as soon as it falls due. It is true that as per Section 4(A)
(1), the employer is liable to pay compensation as soon as it falls due. But a conjoint reading of the said provision along with other connection
provisions will show that in case of denial of liability by the opposite party based on the contention that the deceased or the injured was not a
workman under the opposite party, then to give jurisdiction to the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation to decide the said issue, a claim
should have been made by the persons having locus standi to make it namely; the injured person or the dependents of the deceased.
11. Section 4(A)(2) says, in cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to
make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts and such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made
to the workman as the case may be without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim.
Section 10(1) deals with the claim for compensation. It reads as follows:-
No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of theaccident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided
as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident
or, in case of death, within two years from the date of death.
Section 10(A) enjoins a duty on the employer to submit statement of fatal accidents to the Commissioner. It reads as follows:-
10-A. Power to require from employers statements regarding fatal accidents.-
(1) Where a Commissioner receives information from any source that a workman has died as a result of an accident arising out of arid in the
course of his employment, he may send by registered post a notice to the workman''s employer requiring him to submit, within thirty days of the
service of the notice, a statement, in the prescribed form, giving the circumstances attending the death of the workman, and indicating whether, in
the opinion of the employer, he is or is not liable to deposit compensation on account of the death.
(2) If the employer is of opinion that he is liable to deposit compensation, he shall make the deposit within thirty days of the service of the notice.
(3) If the employer is of opinion that he is not liable to deposit compensation, he shall in his statement indicate the grounds on which he disclaims
liability.
(4) Where the employer has so disclaimed liability, the Commissioner, after such enquiry as he may think fit, may inform any of the dependants of
the deceased workman that it is open to the dependants to prefer a claim for compensation, and may give them such other further information as he
may think fit.
Sub clauses 3 and 4 are relevant. When the employer disowns his liability, then the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation can inform the
dependents of the deceased workman that it is open to the dependents to prefer a claim for compensation.
Section 4(4) reads as follows:-
If the injury of the workman results in his death, the employer shall, in addition to the compensation under sub-section (1), deposit with the
Commissioner a sum of one thousand rupees for payment of the same to the eldest surviving dependant of the workman towards the expenditure
of the funeral of such workman or where the workman did not have a dependant or was not living with his dependant at the time of this death to
the person who actually incurred such expenditure.
12. A conjoint reading of all the above said provisions will make it clear that in case of fatal accidents only the dependents can prefer a claim for
compensation u/s 10 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. When the very locus standi of the claimants is disputed, unless and until the claimants
prove their entitlement to make such a claim and thus prove their locus standi to prefer the claim, the other questions need not be gone into as the
question of maintainability of the claim petition goes to the root of the case itself. Even assuming that the question of relationship of employer and
workman should have been gone into notwithstanding the fact that the Commissioner has come to a conclusion that the petitioners have not proved
to be the dependents of the deceased, the materials available on record will not be enough to prove that there was an employer and workman
relationship between the respondent/opposite party and the deceased Jayaraman. The only documents relied on by the appellants/applicants are
Ex.A2 - copy of the First Information Report and Ex.A4 - copy of the Postmortem certificate. Ex.A4 does not lend any assistance to find a
solution to the question whether there was any relationship of employer and workman between the respondent/opposite party and the deceased
Jayaraman.
13. Of course the appellants/applicants have produced Ex.A2 - copy of the FIR which shows that a case was registered on the file of
Sankarapuram Police Station, Villupuram District as Crime No. 471 of 1998 on 13.07.1998 for offences punishable under Sections 304-A and
201 IPC based on the complaint of one Govindarajan, Village Administrative Officer of Pootai village. The complaint is a very short one to the
effect that Jayaraman who was employed in the rice mill of the respondent herein/opposite party got injured and died on 13.07.1998 at about 2.00
p.m. while he was thus working in the said mill. How did he sustain injuries leading to his death? - has not been stated in the complaint. It has also
been stated in the complaint that when he went to the house of the deceased in Pootai village at about 5.00 p.m. on the same day he found the
dead body of deceased Jayaraman kept in that house. The complaint itself was lodged at 8.00 p.m. It is obvious from the said complaint that he
was not an eye witness for the said accident.
14. The first appellant who was examined as A.W.1 would also admit that she did not have any record to show that the deceased was employed
as a machine operator in the rice mill of the respondent. Though she would state that she was informed by a person belonging to the said village
that the deceased Jayaraman died in an accident that occurred in the rice mill, the was not in a position to state even the name of the so-called
informant. Except the ipse dixit of the first appellant as A.W.1, there is no other evidence to show that the deceased Jayaraman was employed as a
machine operation in the rice mill belonging to the respondent/opposite party. None of the residents of the village was examined to prove the said
contention of the appellants. The appellants have not produced either family card or voters list or legal heir certificate to show whether there was
anybody in the family of Jayaraman who would be in a position to come and depose regarding his alleged employment under the
respondent/opposite party. Not even the Village Administrative Officer who preferred the complaint to the police was examined on the side of the
appellants to prove either the employment of the deceased Jayaraman under the respondent or the accident alleged to have occurred in the rice
mill. On the other hand, the respondent who figured as R.W.1 would state categorically that there was no relationship between himself and the
deceased Jayaraman that the deceased Jayaraman was not employed under him as a workman and that hence he was not liable to pay any
compensation.
15. For all the reasons stated above, even assuming that the question of employer and workman along with the question whether the deceased
died in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment could be decided before deciding or along with the question whether the
appellants are dependents of the deceased, the said evidence adduced on the side of the appellants/applicants shall not be enough to arrive at a
conclusion that there was such a relationship between the respondent and the deceased Jayaraman and that the deceased Jayaraman died due to
an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the respondent in his rice mill. For the said reason alone, the claim of the
appellants deserves to be rejected and hence the order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation does not deserve any
interference on the above said ground of challenge.
16. Coming to the question of locus standi to prefer the claim for compensation, after considering the oral and documentary evidence produced on
the side of the appellants/applicants, the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation has arrived at a correct conclusion that they had
miserably failed in proving their case that they were the wife and daughter of the deceased Jayaraman and hence were his dependents. The
appellants have simply relied on a copy of the receipt dated 23.04.1985 issued by the temple authorities of Arulmigu Veerateswarar Devasthanam,
Keezhaiyur, Thirukkovilur Taluk evidencing payment of Rs. 25/- as fee for performing the marriage between Jayaraman and Rajasulochana. As
per the said receipt, the fees was paid on 23.04.1985 for the marriage scheduled to be performed on a future date namely, 26.04.1985. A clerk of
the said Devasthanam produced an authorisation letter to give evidence regarding the receipt and a xerox copy of the receipt as Ex.A6 and Ex.A7
respectively and deposed. But it is pertinent to note that the respective age of the bride and bridge groom were not noted in the said receipt. The
mere fact that fee was paid under the said receipt for a marriage to be performed at a subsequent date will not be enough to prove that such a
marriage in fact took place. When the temple authorities were in the practice of issuing receipts for granting permission to conduct marriages in the
temple, it is quite surprising to note that the appellants were not able to produce any copy of the marriage register kept in the said Devasthanam.
A.W.2 himself admitted that there was a marriage register and only if the said register was perused it could be ascertained whether the marriage,
for which fee was collected under Ex. A1 and A7, did in fact take place. But such a register has not been summoned and not even a copy of the
relevant entry in the said register has been obtained and produced. The appellants have not even produced the documents like photographs
showing the first appellant and the deceased Jayaraman as wife and husband, family card, voters list etc. Not even the birth certificate of the
second appellant has been produced. The same has been commented upon by the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation in
support of her finding that the appellants had not proved their relationship with the deceased Jayaraman.
17. Now, in the appellate stage, the appellants have come forward with C.M.P. No. 2984 of 2007 seeking permission under Order XLI Rule 27
CPC to produce thru documents as additional documentary evidence. The first document is a xerox copy of the identity card issued to the
petitioner by Tamil Nadu Building Construction Workers Welfare Board, Chennai. It should be noticed that the said document was obtained only
on 11.06.2001 i.e. after the dismissal of the claim petition of the appellants. Though the name of the first appellant''s husband is mentioned as
Jayaraman, there is no indication as to whether the said Jayaraman is alive or not. The address given is No. 51, 6th Kanagasabai Street, Dr. Kanu
Nagar, Nesapakkam, Chennai-78. Therefore no credence can be given to the said document. The second document is the Transfer Certificate of
the second appellant. It was obtained only recently namely, 07.07.2004. In the said certificate, the date of joining in the school has been noted as
01.07.2002, whereas in column 15, the date of leaving the school is noted as 02.06.2002. That means, the certificate had been issued as if she
joined the school at a later date than the date on which she left the very same school. That itself will be enough to show that the said document has
been obtained for the purpose of the case. Similarly a copy of the certificate said to be issued by the Village Administrative Officer of
Thiruvannamalai Town is sought to be produced as the third document. The same was only a residence certificate in which the first appellant has
been described as Tmt. Rajasulochana (a) Sulochana wife of late Jayaraman. The said document was dated 15.06.1999 much before the date on
which the order of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation was passed and even before the counter statement of the respondent was
filed. The appellants have not assigned any valid reason for not producing the document no. 3 during the course of enquiry before the learned
Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. The other two documents came to be obtained subsequent to the order passed by the learned
Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. The discrepancies in the date of admission and the date of leaving the school found in the Transfer
Certificate sought to be produced additional documentary evidence make it obvious that those documents were obtained for the purpose of this
case. Therefore the C.M.P. No. 2984 of 2007 is nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacunae in order to support the claim of the appellants that
they are respectively the wife and daughter of the deceased Jayaraman. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that
the appellants have not made out a case under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for reception of additional evidence and hence the civil miscellaneous
petition deserves to be dismissed.
18. It is pertinent to note that the appellants have not even chosen to produce the death certificate of deceased Jayaraman and legal heir certificate.
Even now the appellants have not chosen to produce the birth certificate of the second appellant. On the other hand, the respondent has made out
a strong case that the appellants/applicants have made an attempt to claim compensation for the death of one Jayaraman with whom they had no
connection at all in order to have unlawful enrichment. In support of his contention, besides pointing out the want of evidence on the side of the
appellants, the respondent has pointed out the following aspects also:
i) The appellants, while making a claim before the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, had not even given their residential
address and on the other hand chose to furnish the address of their advocate alone as the address for service.
ii) The notice dated 30.09.1999 issued to the respondent by the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Kallakurichi, marked as Ex.R1 simply mentioned
the name of the first appellant as ""Jothi wife of late Jayaraman"" without any alias name which would show that the first appellant had given a petition
to the Taluk Legal Services Authority only in the name of Jothi and not as Rajasulochana, whereas in the claim petition, her name has been shown
as Rajasulochana (a) Jothi.
iii) Even in the receipt evidencing payment of fees for the proposed marriage the name of the first appellant was given as Rajasulochana and not
Rajasulochana (a) Jothi. During hearing in this civil miscellaneous appeal, when the learned counsel for the appellants was asked whether the
appellants would be in a position to get a legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar to show their relationship with the deceased Jayaraman. The
learned counsel replied that the appellants won''t be in a position to get such a legal heir certificate. It will clearly show that the appellants were not
in a position to prove that they are respectively the wife and daughter of the deceased Jayaraman.
19. In the light of the foregoing discussions and in the light of the admission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants will
not be able to get a legal heir certificate, the contention of the respondent that the appellants/applicants have made an attempt by making a false
claim posing themselves to be wife and daughter of the deceased Jayaraman in order to gain unlawful enrichment has become more probable.
20. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the challenge made to the finding of the learned Commissioner for
Workmen''s Compensation-II (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai 600 006 to the effect that the claim made by the appellants was not
maintainable as they had not proved their relationship and dependency on the deceased Jayaraman, cannot be countenanced. This court, further
holds that there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. However, taking the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
into account, this court is of the view that there shall be no order as to cost. In the result, C.M.A. No. 1461 of 2002 and C.M.P. No. 2984 of
2007 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.