MANAGEMENT OF KARUMALAI ESTATE Vs. MUTHULAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Management of Karumalai Estate, aggrieved by the award of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore dated 12.06.2013 in E.C.No.115/2011 granting a sum of Rs.8,54,280, is on Appeal.

(2.) Mr.Haroon Al Rasheed, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the evidence has been misread by the Commissioner. He has invited attention of this Court to the evidence of PW.1/wife of the deceased who had state that it was Rooban, who took her husband for work and that Sivanandam did not pay salary to her husband directly. This evidence of the wife of the deceased cannot be given any weightage inasmuch as she appears to be an illiterate person and the admissions of RW.1/the Contractor would show that he had engaged the services of the deceased. The Co-worker Rooban had deposed that the said Muthukumar and himself were engaged by Sivanandam . Therefore, the Tribunal had concluded that the deceased was working under the said Sivanandam and the claim that Rooban was Sub-Contractor, was not accepted. I do not see any reason to interfere with the said findings of the Commissioner.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that quantum of compensation is on the higher side and fixing of Rs.8,000/- per month as minimum wage of the deceased cannot be said to be reasonable. The said fixation is in terms of notification issued by the Government under Section 4(1) (B) of the Workmen Compensation Act in S.O.1258(D) dated 31.05.2010. Even in the counter filed by the 1st respondent it is specifically stated that as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, the monthly income should be taken only at Rs.8000/- and not Rs.9000/- as claimed. The 2nd respondent has also taken the same stand as that of the 1st respondent before the Commissioner. It is not in dispute that S.O.1258 [c] dated 31.05.2000 directs the fixation of the wages at Rs.8000/-per month. The accident occurred in the year 2011, therefore, I do not find any irregularity or any question of law that arises in this appeal. Under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, there should be a substantial question of law to enable this Court to interfere with the Award of the Commissioner. I do not find any question of law leave alone substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal and hence, the appeal is dismissed confirming the Award of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation Act made in E.C.No.115/2011 dated 12.06.2013.