MANAGEMENT OF ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY Vs. M VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Award, dated 25.5.1998, made in W.C. No. 101 of 1996, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai, the present appeal has been filed. According to the respondent/claimant, he was employed as a Security Guard in Guard well Security Allied Service, from 1991 onwards. The Management of the 2nd respondent has deputed him to various places and from March' 1993 onwards, he had worked as Security Guard in Annamalai University, Directorate of Distance Education, Madras Study Centre. While he was functioning as Security Guard, on 6.11.1994, at 7.30 a.m., he met with an accident and sustained a fracture in his leg. Immediately thereafter, he was admitted in Government Royapettah Hospital and treated as inpatient between 6.11.1994 and 1.12.1994. The Doctor, who treated the respondent/claimant, has issued a disability Certificate, stating that he had suffered 15% disablement. At the time of accident, he was drawing monthly wages of Rs. 1,031/-. In the abovesaid circumstances, he preferred a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act for Rs. 24,000/-.

(2.) The 1st opposite party, Management of Annamalai University, appellant herein, has disputed the employment. They further submitted that the 1st respondent/claimant was not employed by them and therefore, no liability can be fastened on them. According to the University, the Management of Guard well Security, alone was liable to pay compensation. As per the contract, executed between the Management of Annamalai University and Guard well Security, the employer, viz., Guard well Security alone to pay compensation. For the abovesaid grounds, the University has prayed for dismissal of the claim.

(3.) The Management of Guard well Security Services, has also opposed the claim petition, on the ground that the respondent/claimant had never worked with them. It was also submitted that the Security Services run by one Subesh, was closed in the year 1995 and that there was a change of Management. According to the Security Services, the Principal employer alone was liable to pay compensation.