VASUKI Vs. M GOVINDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant before the Labour Deputy Commissioner-II for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai is the Appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and it is is filed assailing the order dated 18.3.2003 made in IA.No.55/2002 in WC.No.124/2001, whereby the Labour Deputy Commissioner dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the deceased V.Saravanakumar being an employee of the 1st Respondent registered with the Employees State Insurance Corporation, the applicant is barred from claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the Appellant's son Saravanakumar was employed under the 1st Respondent for more than two years prior to the accident and on 18.11.2000, he met with an accident and died on 20.11.2000. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 21 years old and receiving a salary of not less than Rs.3000/- p.m. The deceased was working in the heat treatment plant and he fell into the oil tank that was having no safety wall and without having any amenities as laid down under the Factories Act and Rules thereunder. In spite of repeated approaches, the 1st Respondent failed to pay any compensation, which had necessitated the claimant to approach the Labour Deputy Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The case of the Appellant is that the said accident and the death of the deceased were during the course of his employment with the 1st Respondent and therefore, the 1st Respondent is liable to pay compensation.

(3.) PENDING the main application, the Appellant filed an application in IA.No.55 of 2002 to direct the Employees State Insurance Corporation to produce (1) the application for registration in Form1, (2) Employer's Code Number Register, (3) declaration form and to direct the 1st Respondent to produce the Wages Register for the period from 1.6.2001. The Respondents 1 and 2 produced the above said documents and the Labour Deputy Commissioner had reserved the case for orders. In the mean while, the applicant filed an application in IA.No.21/2002 to reopen the case and to permit the Petitioner to examine herself in support of her case, which was resisted by the 1st Respondent.