1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD)No.1669 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 D.Thilagavathi : Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Special Tahsildar, (Social Security Scheme), Uthamapalayam Taluk, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to condone delay of 18 days for submitting the petitioner's application dated 28.08.2009 for accidental relief under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Labourers, Farmers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2006 and to pay the accidental relief as per the scheme. For Petitioner : M/s.Veera. Kathiravan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner's husband was enrolled as a member in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Labourers, Farmers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2006. He was an agricultural coolie and has a small piece of agricultural land at Annapuram Village in Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. On 11.07.2009 at about 04.00 p.m. when he was doing pump set repairing work at a well in Annapuram Village, he fell in the well and died. The dead body was taken on 12.07.2009 at about 3.00 a.m. Immediately, a First Information Report was registered in Crime No.347 of 2009 under section 177 of Cr.P.C. Post mortem was conducted on 12.07.2009. The petitioner received the death certificate on 17.07.2009 from the Executive Officer at Municipal Office, Kamayagoundanpatty. Thereafter, she applied for the legal heir certificate and she could only get it on 24.08.2009. Thereafter, she submitted an application before the second respondent on 28.08.2009 claiming Accident Death Benefit under Section 18(3) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Labourers Farmers (Social Security Welfare) Act, 2006. 2. According to the petitioner, even though she made a request on 07.09.2009 seeking to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, no orders have been passed till date and according to the petitioner even though the amount was sanctioned it was denied only on the ground that there was a delay. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.53 of 2010, dated 28.01.2010, whereby this Court has considered this aspect and also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 found that the delay could be condoned by the concerned authority as it is a benevolent legislation. Therefore, she filed a petition for issuance of writ of mandamus to consider her application after condoning the delay and then to award sanctioned amount. 3. Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 4. Heard both parties. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that though it is a benevolent legislation, the petitioner has not given sufficient reason for delay. In any view of the matter, it is only to be considered by the authorities concerned. 6. Suffice to say that as per the benevolent legislation of the Government, the labourers are safeguarded in the event of death and they should also be given benefit, subject to the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. If there is a delay, the delay has to be gone into by the authorities concerned. In this case, admittedly the petitioner has submitted an application belatedly due to non-issue of legal heirship certificate, which is only issued by the Government authorities. Thus, the application definitely should be considered by the authorities concerned in view of the decision of the Division Bench in W.A.(MD).No.53 of 2010, in which I was also a member. At paragraph 6, 7 and 9 we have categorically held as follows: "6. Section 18(3)(b) of the Act provides that in the event of the death of a registered member, the claim shall be made by his nominee in Form No.VI. 18(3)(d) of the Act states that if a registered member dies in an accident, then, Death Certificate and Postmortem Certificate should be issued by a Medical Officer not below the rank of Government Assistant Civil Surgeon. If there is a delay of 30 days in obtaining the Postmortem Certificate, the applicant should produce a Tahsildar Certificate in this regard. While Regulation (3) refers to application filed in Form No.IV within 3 days, while referring to application in the case of death, no time limit appears to have been indicated. Even if time limit is indicated, in view of the reason why this Act has been brought into force, we think that the authorities should consider the reasons as to why there is a delay in making the application, if the application is made belatedly. In this case, the applicant has given sufficient reasons for delay. All that the authorities should do is to verify whether the deceased was a registered member under the scheme, whether the accident had in fact taken place as described in the application and whether he is entitled to the benefit under the scheme. 7. In AIR 2008 SC 199 - Morgina Begum v. Managing Director, Hanuma Plantation Ltd., the Supreme Court, while dealing with the situs where claim petition should be filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, took into account the plight of migrant labourers and the objects of the Amending Act 30/1995, which amended the place where the claim can be made and it was restricted not necessarily to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the place where the accident took place but also at the place where the labourer ordinarily resided. The Supreme Court took note of difficulty of poor workmen or the dependents, who reside in one part of the country and shift from one place to another for their livelihood, in filing the claim petition only in the place of accident and observed that "Labour statutes are for the welfare of the workmen' and referred to the decision in (1996) 2 SCC 614 - Bharat Singh v. Management of New Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi and others, where the Supreme Court took the view that "welfare legislation should be given a purposive interpretation safeguarding the rights of the have nots rather than giving a literal construction." This view has been taken not only in this judgment but in numerous judgments of the Supreme Court as well as our High Court as to the manner in which welfare legislations should be interpreted. In the present case, the Act is one such legislation and, therefore, we should advance the cause of the objects rather than restrict the rights of the poor agricultural labourer who makes a claim under the Act. 9. In the present case, we have already seen that the Act does not appear to restrict the time schedule within which an application in the case of death should be made. In those circumstances, we do not think that we would be erring, if we, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ensure that substantial and social justice is done to the poor applicant who has lost his son in the accident." 7. As the said Act is a benevolent piece of legislation, the authorities definitely should go into the reason for delay and should also consider the grant of award. Further the delay is only 18 days. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the application for condonation of delay and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three months. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Special Tahsildar, (Social Security Scheme), Uthamapalayam Taluk,Uthamapalayam, Theni District. +1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.5752 W.P.(MD)No.1669 of 2011 09.03.2011 Srm PA/05.04.2011/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/