Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1387 (KER)

Lucy Joy v. F. Sunderraj

2025-05-23

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

body2025
JUDGMENT : M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J. 1. These four appeals arise from four Applications for compensation, which were disposed of by the Employees Compensation Commissioner as per a common order. The Opposite Parties Nos.4 & 5 are the appellants. An accident occurred in a granite stone quarry situated in the property of the 1 st Opposite Party. Three persons died in an accident and one person suffered injuries. The person who suffered injuries filed E.C.C. No. 146/2014 and the legal heirs of the persons who died in the accident filed E.C.C. No. 147/2014, 148/2014 and 149/2014. 2. The Applications were filed against three persons on the allegation that those persons have been operating the quarry as on the date of the accident which occurred at 8.45 A.M on 05.02.2009. The Opposite Parties Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed joint Written Statement. During the pendency of the Applications, the 1 st Opposite Party died and the additional Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 were impleaded as the legal heirs of the 1 st Opposite Party. They filed additional Written Statement. 3. The Commissioner found that the injured and deceased persons with respect to whom the compensation is claimed in the Applications were the employees of the 1 st Opposite Party. Consequently, the Orders were passed granting compensation in favour of the applicants, holding that the Opposite Parties Nos.4 to 7, who are the legal heirs of the deceased 1st Opposite Party, are liable to satisfy the award. These appeals are filed by the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 and 5 challenging their liability to pay the awarded amounts as per the orders passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Prinsun Philip and the learned counsel for the respondents Smt.Pushpavathi.K. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the relevant time of the accident, the quarry was operated by the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 as per Ext. R1 and R2 Lease Agreements executed by the 1 st Opposite Party in favour of them. The evidence before the Commissioner clearly proved that the quarry was in the possession and control of the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 at the time of accident. There was no employer-employee relationship between the 1 st Opposite Party and the deceased and injured persons. The evidence before the Commissioner clearly proved that the quarry was in the possession and control of the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 at the time of accident. There was no employer-employee relationship between the 1 st Opposite Party and the deceased and injured persons. Hence the Commissioner ought to have ordered the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 to pay the amounts awarded in the impugned orders. The learned Counsel further contended that the specific allegation in the Applications is that the quarry had been operated by the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3. There is no reason for exonerating the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 from the liability. Exts. R3 and R4 would prove that the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 also had been conducting the quarry, along with the 1 st Opposite Party since they are also accused in S.C. No. 257/2011 and 267/2011, in which the 1 st Opposite Party is an accused. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents argued that the additional Opposite Parties who were impleaded consequent to the death of the 1 st Opposite Party filed an additional Written Statement contradictory to the stand taken by the original 1 st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party along with Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 filed Written Statement specifically stating that the quarry had been conducted by one Nesamony who was the deceased in E.C.C. No. 148/2014 and that the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 were operating lorries from and to the quarry and that they had no direct or indirect connection with the quarry. The 1 st Opposite Party had no contention that the quarry was leased to Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3. The additional Opposite Parties Nos.4 to 7 who were impleaded as the legal heirs of the 1 st Opposite Party have no right to advance a contention that is not taken by the original 1 st Opposite Party. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. 8. The dispute in this appeal is only with respect to the employer employee relationship of the 1st Opposite Party. The Applications were filed contending that the deceased and the injured persons were the employees of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 as on the date of accident. The quarry is admittedly situated in the property belonging to the 1st Opposite Party. The Applications were filed contending that the deceased and the injured persons were the employees of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 as on the date of accident. The quarry is admittedly situated in the property belonging to the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party filed Written Statement along with the Opposite Parties Nos 2 and 3. It was the common case of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 that the whole mining operation in the property was entrusted with one Nesamony, who employed the other deceased and injured persons. The said Nesamony also died in the accident. The specific case pleaded in the written statement is that the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 were operating lorries from and to the quarry, and that they have no direct or indirect connection with the workers working in the quarry. The lorry numbers of the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 are also stated in the Written Statement. The 1st Opposite Party did not have a case that the quarry belonged to him was leased to the Opposite Parties Nos 2 and 3. In order to prove the entrustment of the quarry with Nesamony, no evidence was adduced before the Commissioner. Subsequently, when the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 were impleaded consequent to the death of the 1st Opposite Party as his legal heirs, they filed Written Statement taking a stand that the quarry belonged to the 1st Opposite Party was leased to the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 as per Ext.R1 and R2 Lease agreements. The 5th Opposite Party was examined as RW1 to prove the said fact. The claim of the applicants is against Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3. Apart from their status as the legal heirs of the 1st Opposite Party, the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 have no interest in the proceedings. Hence, they cannot disown the statement made by the 1st Opposite Party in his Written Statement and take a stand contrary to the stand taken by him. In the Written Statement filed by the 1st Opposite Party, he has no case that the quarry was leased to the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3. On the other hand, the specific case is that they have no direct or indirect connection with the workers of the quarry. In the Written Statement filed by the 1st Opposite Party, he has no case that the quarry was leased to the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3. On the other hand, the specific case is that they have no direct or indirect connection with the workers of the quarry. The legal heirs step into the shoes of the deceased party to the proceedings, when they are impleaded consequent to the death of the deceased party. Legal Heirs are bound by the pleadings of the deceased party. They cannot withdraw from the pleadings of the deceased party. Hence, the subsequent pleading of the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 in their Written Statement which is directly opposite to the pleadings of the 1 st Opposite Party, could not be accepted. When such pleading of the Opposite Parties Nos 4 to 7 are ignored Exts. R1 to R4 documents produced by the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 are beyond the scope of pleadings. Only if the 1st Opposite Party had a case that the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 had taken lease of the quarry, the said documents could be looked into. The strict rules of pleadings and evidence are not applicable to matters coming under labour welfare legislation. Even then, if the evidence is diametrically opposite to the pleadings it could not be relied on. Hence Exts. R1 to R4 documents produced by the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 could not be considered for deciding the dispute. Hence, the Commissioner was right in holding that the deceased and injured persons with respect to whom compensation is claimed in the Applications are the employees of the 1st Opposite Party. 9. The next question is whether the Commissioner was right in exonerating the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 from the liability. Here also, when we go through the joint Written Statement filed by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3, it is stated that the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 have no direct or indirect connection with the workers working in the quarry. The specific statement is that they are the drivers of the lorries which were operating from and to the quarry. In view of the said contention taken by the 1 st Opposite Party, the additional Opposite Parties Nos. The specific statement is that they are the drivers of the lorries which were operating from and to the quarry. In view of the said contention taken by the 1 st Opposite Party, the additional Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 cannot take a different stand and contend that the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 have also connection with the quarry and the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 are also liable to pay the compensation along with the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the Employees Compensation Commissioner has rightly found that there is employer - employee relationship between the deceased persons and the injured persons with the 1 st Opposite Party and awarded compensation ordering the Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 7 to pay the same as the legal heirs of the deceased 1 st Opposite Party. No substantial question of law arises in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed without costs.