SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. J. SELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/respondents have preferred the present appeal against the order passed in W.C. No. 167 of 2006, on the file of Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai. The short facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) THE first respondent, in his counter, which was adopted by the second and third respondents has submitted that the deceased Jayapandian had not worked under them as a permanent employee, and that contract workers employed by them cannot avail the facilities offered to permanent employees and that as the date of occurrence of the accident, i.e., 23.4.2006 was a Sunday and a holiday, and as the deceased had done the work on his own accord, without seeking permission of the respondent, the accident had not been caused during the course of his employment under the third respondent. It was submitted that as the deceased had also not taken the precaution of wearing hand gloves and hip belt while doing repair work, the accident had been caused only due to his negligence and as such, the respondents cannot be held liable to pay compensation. The averments in the claim regarding age and income of the deceased was also not admitted. It was submitted that the petitioners should prove that they are the legal -heirs of the deceased and they are dependants on the income of the deceased through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

(3.) THE learned Commissioner of Labour, framed four issues for consideration in the case, viz.,