CHIEF ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. M PANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai in his capacity as the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai dated 08.01.2000 passed in W.C. No. 348 of 1998 on his file, the opposite parties (employer) before the Commissioner have brought forth this civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2.) The respondent herein, claiming to be a workman under the appellants, had made a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for a sum of Rs. 3,20,355/- as compensation for the alleged injuries sustained by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the appellants. According to the respondent/claimant, he was engaged by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as a helper to work under the immediate supervision of the second appellant, whereas the first appellant happened to be the Chief Controlling Officer. On the date of accident, viz., 23.05.1998, while he was attending on the cut point post in Aanaiyur Village, he was thrown from the said post and fell down. Due to the fall, he sustained fracture on the left thigh, for which he received medical treatment in the Government Rajaji General Hospital, Madurai. Despite treatment given to the respondent/claimant for the injuries sustained by him, the same resulted in permanent disability. At the time of accident, he was aged about 27 years and was earning a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month. With the specific contention that the respondent/claimant was a workman under the appellants/opposite parties and he sustained the above said injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the appellants, the respondent/claimant prayed for an award against the appellants herein directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 3,20,355/- as compensation. In order to prove his claim, only one witness was examined on the side of the respondent/claimant and four documents were marked as Exs. A-1 to A-4.

(3.) The claim of the respondent/claimant was resisted by the appellants/opposite parties by filing a written objection in which it was contended that the respondent/claimant was only a contract worker and hence will not come under the definition of workman, entitled to the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act; that on the date of occurrence, while he was descending from the pole after completing the work, he fell down on the ground from the mid point of the pole; that immediately thereafter he was taken to Government Rajaji General Hospital, Madurai by one Santhanam, Line Inspector, who was the supervisor of the work at site; that the respondent/claimant, on completion of treatment, was discharged from the hospital on 05.08.1998; that the allegation made in the claim petition as if he was again admitted on 13.08.1998 and took treatment as an in-patient till 30.01.1999 were false and imaginary; that the petition allegations regarding the age and salary of the respondent/claimant were false and that in any event, the amount claimed as compensation was excessive and exorbitant.