MANAGEMENT ASHOK SIZING Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WORKMENS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein/applicants have filed in W.C.No.249 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai, stating that the 1st applicant's husband one Mr.Kalidas, was working as loadman under the appellant herein, for the past 5 years and he was paid a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as salary including batta on 25.01.2006, in the night hours, the said Kalidas was involved in doing his duty as loadman under the appellant's management and thereafter he did not turn up at his residence. On 27.01.2005, at about 04.30p.m., one Alagirisamy, who was the accountant in the appellant's management informed the applicants that the said Kalidas had expired by talking into a well which is situated within the premises of the opposite party's sizing mill. Hence, the applicants have filed the claim petition for claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.

(2.) The Management/appellant herein had filed a counter statement and denied the averments made in the claim. The opposite party stated that the deceased was not an employee and he does the loading and unloading and when the lorry comes to the factory. Actually, there is no nexus between the opposite party and the deceased Kalidas. On 25.01.2006, in the night, the (deceased) Kalidas and another loadman were doing unloading of goods from the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-67Q-9480 and after furnishing the work, they had left the factory. The opposite party further submitted that the well is far away from the factory and the deceased has no business to go to the well. Further, the well is surrounded by a 3 feet parapet well and unless the deceased had voluntarily jumped into the well, the question of accidentally talking into the well does not arise. The opposite party further denied the averments regarding the age and income of the deceased.

(3.) The 2nd opposite party has also filed a counter statement stating that he is not the owner of the said sizing mill unit, but he has given the land to the 1st opposite party on rental basis. As such, the relationship between the 1st and 2nd opposite party is that of a tenant and a landlord. Therefore, the 2nd opposite party has been included in the said compensation application is a mis-joinder.