CMA(MD)/461/2019 of RAJAGOPAL Vs MUNIYAMMAL on 2 November 2026

J U D G M E N T

The sole respondent in W.C.No.50 of 2015, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Tribunal, Dindigul has filed the present C.M.A.(MD).No.461 of 2019, challenging the award passed in W.C. No.50 of 2015, dated 17.05.2019 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was allowed in part and a sum of Rs.5,27,800/- was awarded as compensation.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. According to the claimants, the deceased namely Palraj was employed under the appellant for the purpose of digging a well. During the course of such employment, while the deceased was engaged in digging the well, he accidentally slipped and sustained injuries, resulting in his death.

CMA(MD) No. 461 of 2019

2.2. The appellant/employer resisted the claim contending that there was no digging of any well under his employment and, more importantly, that there was no employer–employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased. It was therefore contended that the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation.

2.3. Before the Commissioner, the claimant was examined as P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were stated to be co-workers, were also examined and EX.P.1 to EX.P.4 were marked. The relevant documents, including the medical and post-mortem records, were marked as EX.R.1. and EX.C.1. R.W.1 was examined and EX.C.1 also marked on the side of the respondent.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the entire evidence, the Commissioner found that the deceased was working under the appellant in connection with the digging of the well and that the accident had occurred during the course of such employment. Accordingly, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.5,27,800/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident.

3.2. Aggrieved by the said award, the employer has preferred the present appeal.

CMA(MD) No. 461 of 2019

4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claimant failed to establish the existence of an employer–employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased. It was therefore contended that the Commissioner ought not to have fastened liability upon the appellant without sufficient proof of such relationship.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Claimants:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the employer–employee relationship was clearly established through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. It was further submitted that the evidence of the co- workers corroborated the version of the claimant and that there was no contra evidence adduced by the appellant. Therefore, there was no justification to interfere with the factual finding rendered by the Commissioner.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is admitted on the following Substantial Question of Law: i.Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Tribunal, Dindugul is right on coming to a decision that the claimant

CMA(MD) No. 461 of 2019 is a workman under the appellant herein on no documentary evidence? ii.Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation in absence of proof of employment?

CMA(MD) No. 461 of 2019

8. Discussion and findings:

8.1. The principal contention raised by the appellant is that the claimants failed to establish the employer–employee relationship. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the Commissioner was justified in concluding that the deceased was employed under the appellant and that the accident occurred during the course of such employment.

8.2. The claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, has specifically deposed that the deceased was working under the appellant in connection with the digging of the well. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who were the co-workers were examined regarding the employment of the deceased.

8.3. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 assumes significance since they were co-workers and their evidence directly supports the claimant's case regarding the employment of the deceased under the appellant.

8.4. The appellant has not entered the witness box to substantiate his specific defence that the deceased was not employed by him. No independent witness was examined and no documentary material was produced to disprove the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.

CMA(MD) No. 461 of 2019

8.5. The medical and post-mortem records further establish the death of the deceased and are consistent with the case that he sustained injuries while engaged in the work of digging the well.

8.6. Thus, the evidence adduced by the claimants is consistent and corroborative. In the absence of any contra evidence, the Commissioner was justified in accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and holding that there existed an employer–employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased.

8.7. It is also relevant that the occurrence arose in the course of the work in which the deceased was engaged. The evidence on record establishes that the deceased sustained the fatal injuries while doing the work of digging the well under the appellant.

8.8. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that the deceased was a workman employed by the appellant and that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity warranting interference in the present appeal.

8.9. The compensation awarded by the Commissioner is also not shown to suffer from any error warranting interference in this appeal.

9. Result:

CMA(MD) No. 461 of 2019

9.1. Accordingly, C.M.A.(MD).No.461 of 2019 is dismissed, confirming the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul in W.C. No.50 of 2015, dated 17.05.2019.

9.2. The appellant/employer shall deposit the award amount of Rs.5,27,800/-, together with interest at the rate awarded by the Commissioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the same has not already been deposited.

9.3. On such deposit, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Consequently connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.11.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No aas To

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour Tribunal, Dindugul.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. aas C.M.A.(MD).No.461 of 2019