MANAGEMENT OF VICKSON TOOLS Vs. PALANICHAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 23.05.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Coimbatore, in W.C. No: 132 of 2000 filed by the employer / 1st opposite Party. The appellant is the 1st opposite Party who filed the appeal against the award of a sum of Rs. 44,200/- in favour of the applicant who sustained injuries and suffered disability due to an accident which occurred in the course and arising out of employment at the work spot namely in the house of the 1st opposite party, under the supervision of the 2nd opposite party. The Deputy Commissioner had appraised the evidence and after a full fledged enquiry, came to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs. 44,200/- in favour of the applicant against which the present appeal has been preferred by the 1st opposite Party " the employer.

(2.) THE points for consideration in this appeal are

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant / First Opposite Party would submit in his argument that the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation did not consider the entire evidence produced by the 1st opposite party and the objections raised by them but, had come to a wrong conclusion of awarding the compensation to the applicant. He would further submit in his argument that the pay role of the 1st opposite party namely that of the factory, was produced by the 1st opposite party which was not considered by the Deputy Commissioner and if so considered it would disclose that the applicant is not a workman working under him. More over, he would submit that the applicant himself has stated that he was working in the portico centering at the house of the 1st opposite party and, therefore, he is not connected with the factory of the 1st opposite party and thus he is not liable to pay compensation on that score also. THE calculation of compensation by the learned Deputy Commissioner was also without any basis; On an arbitrary manner he had fixed the wages of the applicant and he had also notionally fixed the disability without any help of the evidence and therefore, the quantum of compensation fixed is also not sustainable in law. He would further submit that even presuming that the accident had so happened on 07.04.2000, on that date the definition of the word "Workmen" under Section 2 (n) of the Workmen Compensation Act had no application and the persons who are in connection with the trade or business of the employer alone could claim the compensation and no other person who are in the domestic work are entitled for any compensation as the said amendment was effective from 09.08.2000 only. He would further argue for setting aside the award and thereby the appeal be allowed.