P MAHAMANI Vs. TAHSILDAR; M CHINNATHAMBI AND P RAJAPANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the WC Act). The petitioner herein has filed the above writ petition challenging the Gazette notification dated 15.05.2006 bringing for auction the immovable properties for recover of the compensation amount of Rs. 67,200/- awarded in W.C. No. 26 of 1992 by the Deputy Commissioner Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Madurai dated 03.11.1993.

(2.) The facts of the case being that the second respondent was employed as a workman for putting paddy bundles in the third respondent's (brother of the writ petitioner) paddy crushing thresher as a permanent employee and was getting Rs. 40/- per day and on 05.03.1991 at about 2.00 p.m. when the second respondent was putting paddy bundle into the paddy thresher at Government Kalam, his right hand got into the paddy thresher accidentally and thereafter, he was taken to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai and was admitted as inpatient and discharged on 12.03.1991. It is stated that the third respondent paid the entire medical expenses incurred in the hospital. Thereafter, the second respondent was admitted as in-patient at Government Rajaji Hospital on 13.03.1991 and discharged on 16.03.1991 and thereafter readmitted in the Meenakshi Mission Hospital, on 17.03.1991 and discharged on 01.06.1991. The second respondent sustained permanent disability of loss of three right carpel bone, loss of exterior tendon, loss of nerve supply, loss of dosal skin and thereby total loss of finger movement and that he cannot do anything with right hand and the Doctor assessed the disability upto 44% and insofar as professional disability is concerned, it was claimed at 100% as he could not carry on his employment of putting paddy bundle into the paddy crusher. The second respondent at the time of accident was aged 21 years and he claimed compensation of Rs. 1,11,355/-. The third respondent appeared before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and denied the claim and also stated that there is no employer and employee relationship between the second and third respondents. The claimant examined himself as A.W.1, the Doctor was examined as A.W.2, a co-worker was examined as A.W.3 and the owner of the paddy was examined as A.W.4 to prove the employment and that the crusher equipment was owned by the 3rd respondent herein. The third respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and did not examine any other witness on his side. Exhibits A-1 to A-10 were marked on the side of the claimant, the third respondent did not produce any documentary evidence. The authority after considering the oral and documentary evidence passed an award dated 03.11.1993 and computed the compensation at Rs. 67,200/- payable by demand draft to the second respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the interest at 6% will be charged from the date of accident till the date of deposit. It is not in dispute that the said award dated 03.11.1993 has become final as no appeal was preferred under Section 30 of the WC Act by the third respondent.

(3.) The petitioner in the writ petition is the brother of the third respondent, the employer, claims that the patta has been issued jointly in the names of the petitioner and his brothers including the third respondent herein. After the demise of the petitioner's father in 1984, the petitioner, mother, five sons, and three daughters succeeded to his estate. According to the writ petitioner, the third respondent was the youngest son and was carrying separate business in paddy crushing and none of the legal heirs of the petitioner's father had anything to do with the said business. The petitioner would contend that the impugned order is illegal since the first respondent has no power to bring the properties for sale in respect of the award amount though treated as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (hereinafter referred to as the RR Act). The petitioner would further contend that in terms of Section 31 of the WC Act, it is only the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation who may recover the amount as arrears of land revenue and the Commissioner is deemed to be a public officer within the meaning of Section 5 of the RR Act and any arrears can be recovered only in terms of Section 5 of the RR Act (Central Act) and the first respondent has no power under the Central Act. Therefore, the petitioner further alleged that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notification. The petitioner further alleged that the representation submitted by them in this regard has not been considered by the first respondent. It was further stated that the third respondent has already sold the property to one Muthupandi under a sale deed dated 28.09.1995 in respect of the lands in S. No. 357/4 to an extent of 0.61.5 acres included in Patta No. 809 and as such, the third respondent had no saleable interest, as he had already parted with his rights in respect to that property.