Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1861 (MAD)

M. Tharmaraj v. District Collector, Tuticorin

2007-06-20

K.CHANDRU

body2007
Judgment : The petitioner, who is an employer, is running a Spinning Mill. The deceased Sethu Asari was working as a Carpenter in the said Spinning Mill and he died due to an accident during the course of his employment. The accident took place on 19.5.1999. Thereafter, a claim application under the Workmens Compensation Act was made against the writ petitioner, which finally resulted in the Additional Workmens Compensation Commissioner ordering a sum of Rs.1,17,410/- in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Sethu Asari. 2. According to the convenience of the parties, the matter was heard by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Chennai, though the accident had taken place at Thoothukudi. The Additional Labour Commissioner has requested the District Collector, Tuticorin, who is the first respondent herein, by an order dated 3.8.2004 to recover the said sum as an arrear of Land Revenue tinder the Revenue Recovery Act from the writ petitioner. 3. Under Section 31 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the Commissioner shall be deemed to he a public officer within the meaning of Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. The Commissioner may recover any such arrear of land revenue on any amount payable by any person under the said Act. Obviously, since the Commissioner of Chennai does not have any direct recovery machinery, he has requested the revenue authorities to recover the said amount. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as Section 31 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, refers to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, then the recovery has to he done in conformity with the said Act and the present order is done contrary to Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. 5. I am unable to agree with the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The submissions made by the writ petitioner is to avoid the statutory payment, which he is liable to pay due to the death of late Sethu Aasari. He is unnecessarily harassing the respondents herein for the last eight years. Learned counsel is unable to state whether any appeal has been preferred against the original order of the Additional Workmens Compensation Commissioner under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner Act. Though he admitted that an appeal was filed, but he is unable to give any appeal number. He is unnecessarily harassing the respondents herein for the last eight years. Learned counsel is unable to state whether any appeal has been preferred against the original order of the Additional Workmens Compensation Commissioner under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner Act. Though he admitted that an appeal was filed, but he is unable to give any appeal number. Even he states that the appeal is in the S.R. stage only, which means the prerequisite of deposit of the claim amount would not have been made. The appeal unless the said condition is fulfilled, will never be entertained. That statement made by the counsel is sufficient to hold that the said appeal has been abandoned by the petitioner. 6. Therefore, for the present, the Court will have to proceed only as per the original order of the Commissioner and it had become final. The Workmen’s Compensation Act being a Social Welfare legislation, cannot be allowed to be stultified by the protracted litigation indulged by the petitioner. 7. Under Section 31 of the said Act, the Commissioner has also power to proceed to recover the amount, as he himself notified as a public officer. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in his ordering the District Collector to recover the amount, as the properties are situated away from the territorial jurisdiction of the second respondent. 8. Since this Court is conscious of its duty to uphold the Rule of law, it cannot contend itself with dismissing the writ petition. The respondents in this case have been harassed at the hands of the petitioner and they could not execute the order, in view of the stay order obtained by the petitioner, as they were not made as parties to the writ petition. The Court in order to make effective and complete justice, hereby directs the District Collector, Tuticorin, (First Respondent) to recover the amount, as ordered by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance. 9. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is misconceived and hence the same stands dismissed, except to the directions contained in paragraph No.8 above. The interim order dated 10.12.2004 passed by this Court shall stands vacated. Writ petition dismissed.