SRINIVASA IYER Vs. THANUSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the order passed in W.C.No.304 of 2000, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) The second opposite party in his counter has submitted that he had given the works contract to one Mr.S.Govindan and that as he had not been made a party in the proceeding, the petition is not proper for non-joinder of necessary party. It was submitted that the deceased is not directly employed to do the work and that the Sub Contractor, viz., the first opposite party has appointed the deceased to that work without the consent of the main contractor and as such, the second opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants. It was submitted that the applicants have to prove the age and income of the deceased. It was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that as per the oral agreement between the main contractor, who is not a party to this proceeding, and the second opposite party, for the construction of the house, if any untoward incident occurs, only the main contractor is liable to pay compensation for the same. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim as against the second opposite party.