Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1752 (MAD)

P. Ramachandran v. M. Amutha

2021-06-15

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2021
ORDER : [PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order made in I.A.No.13 of 2017 in E.C.No.122 of 2018 dated 25.10.2018 on the file of the legal officer of workmen compensation / Joint Commissioner of Labour at Vellore.] The revision petition has been filed questioning the order in I.A.No.13 of 2017 in E.C.No.122 of 2018 on the file of the Legal Officer of Workmen Compensation / Joint Commissioner of Labour at Vellore. 2. The present petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2018 passed in the said I.A.No.13 of 2017, whereby the Joint Commissioner of Labour had condoned the delay of 1377 days in filing the claim petition. 3. The short facts of the case are that the deceased / workman was driving the Tractor belonging to the first petitioner herein bearing registration No.TN-32-C-9830. At that time, owing to sudden jolt the deceased fell down from the Tractor and the wheels of the Tractor ran over his head causing death. 4. In the affidavit filed seeking to condone the delay, it had been stated by the claim petitioners / respondents in the present revision petition who are the legal heirs of the deceased that they had taken the dead body after post-mortem and thereafter the petitioners herein given a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards the funeral expenses and had asked them to come later. 5. It had been stated that the respondents herein had trusted the words of the petitioners herein and later asked them about further compensation. There was however non-payment of any further compensation. Only thereafter did they approached an Advocate and then filed the application before the Joint Commissioner of Labour at Vellore. It had been stated there was a delay owing to the above reason and an application was filed seeking to condone the delay. 6. The said application was very seriously objected by the revision petitioners herein. The revision petitioners herein denied that they had paid a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards the funeral expenses. They denied they had come forward to settle the matter subsequently. It had also been stated that the Insurance Company was also not made a party to the proceedings. The revision petitioners herein denied that they had paid a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards the funeral expenses. They denied they had come forward to settle the matter subsequently. It had also been stated that the Insurance Company was also not made a party to the proceedings. In the order, it had been stated that in the interest of justice, the delay can be condoned and thereafter an order can be passed on merits in the main application itself. Questioning that particular order, the present Revision Petition has been filed. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners stated that no sufficient reasons had been given for the delay in filing the application seeking compensation. It is also stated by the learned counsel that there was no employer - employee relation between the petitioners and the deceased. The learned counsel also stated that the Insurance Company had not been made a party / respondent and stated that the Tractor in question was actually insured. 8. It must be pointed out that the Workmen Compensation Act is a welfare enactment to provide compensation owing to unfortunate fatal accidents or any other accidents suffered by a Workman. Whether the deceased was a workman or not be decided only at the time of trial. Prima facie it is admitted that the deceased was driving a Tractor and that the said Tractor was owned by the first petitioner herein. 9. It is not the case of the present petitioner that the deceased was a stranger who was unauthorizedly driving the Tractor with intention to take it away. He had been driving it over the fields for harvesting. At that time the accident occurred and he unfortunately died. There is a direct contractual relationship between the owner of the tractor namely the present petitioners herein and the deceased who was the driver of the Tractor. 10. Insofar as the delay is concerned, it is also seen from the facts, that the present respondents herein / legal heirs of the deceased come from a very remote place and they had also stated in affidavit very fairly that they had received some compensation towards funeral expenses and that thereafter been assured that further amount would be paid and since they did not get that they had no other alternative but to approach the authority for compensation. 11. 11. It is only proper that the matter proceeds further. I am also informed that counter has been filed in the main petition. The matter is posted for trial. Let the parties participate in the trial and all issues can be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced. 12. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.