Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1975 (MAD)

Muthulakshmi v. M. Jayakaran Pon Singh

2015-04-22

V.M.VELUMANI

body2015
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree, dated 18.03.2003, passed in W.C.No.113 of 2000, on the file of Deputy Commissioner, Labour Court, Thirunelveli. 2. The appellants are the legal representatives of one Subbiah Pillai, who died on 29.11.1997, due to the accident took place on 19.11.1997. According to the appellants, the deceased was working as a Driver in the service of the first respondent. The deceased was driving the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-72-A-4838 belonging to the first respondent from Moolakaraipatti to Senthuruti Kulam on 19.11.1997, for agricultural activities of the first respondent. At that time, the Tractor was overturned and he died in spite of medical treatment. The deceased died during and in the course of employment under the first respondent. The deceased received the salary of Rs.2,000/- per month from the first respondent and he was aged about 57 years, at the time of accident. Therefore, the appellants claimed a sum of Rs.1,28,300/- as compensation against both the respondents, as the Tractor involved in the accident was insured with the second respondent Insurance Company. 3. The first respondent filed counter affidavit, denying the averments made by the appellants. It is stated that he is a Doctor/Radiologist and he used to go to different Hospitals in various places, whenever called for. Agriculture is not his work and the deceased was not employed on regular basis. The deceased was employed in agricultural work, on casual basis, whenever there was work and used to pay Rs.65/- per day. He was not employed for Trade or Business of the first respondent. There will be agricultural work only during rainy season and in other days, there will not be any work for the Tractor. 4. The second respondent has also filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the appellants and also stated that the accident did not take place, during and in the course of his employment of the first respondent. 5. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the first appellant was examined herself as PW.1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. The first respondent was examined himself as RW.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2. The second respondent did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 6. 5. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the first appellant was examined herself as PW.1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. The first respondent was examined himself as RW.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2. The second respondent did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, considering all the materials available on record, came to the conclusion that agriculture is not the trade or business of the first respondent and that the deceased was not a permanent driver of the first respondent and that he was doing agriculture work on casual basis. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour also held that the appellants did not prove that the deceased was an employee as per Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. For the above reasons, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour dismissed the W.C. Against the said judgment and decree, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent. Though, notice was served on the first respondent and his name is also printed in the cause list, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through pleader. 8. Admittedly, the accident took place, when the deceased was doing agricultural work of the first respondent. The first respondent has proved that he is not an agriculturist and agriculture is not his trade or business. He is a Doctor/Radiologist. He also proved that the deceased was employed on casual basis during rainy season for agricultural purpose and was paid Rs.65/- per day, whenever he was engaged to do agricultural work. The appellants have not substantiated their claim that the deceased was a permanent driver of the first respondent and was paid Rs.2,000/- per month. Based on the evidence on record and pleadings, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has concluded that the deceased was not a Workman, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour has not only appreciated the facts of the case, and rightly dismissed the appeal. No substantial question of law has arisen for consideration in this appeal. 9. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.