1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.926 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Pune Chem Products Pvt.Ltd. 70-B Viralimalai Road Edamalaipatti Pudur Trichirapalli-12 rep.by its Managing Director .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. V.Tamilarasan .. Respondent/Claimant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the award dated 15.12.2010 passed in W.C.No.36 of 2003 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirapalli. For Appellant : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Venugopal JUDGMENT The award passed in W.C.No.36 of 2003 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirapalli is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed W.C.No.36 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirapalli praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein. 3. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirapalli after considering the evidence available on record has passed an award to the tune of Rs.92,685/-. With regard to liability fixed upon the respondent, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the respondent as appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has contended that the alleged accident has happened on 07.02.2001. On 07.02.2001 the respondent/petitioner has not served under the appellant/respondent and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) has failed to look into the attendance register produced on the side of the appellant/respondent. Under the said circumstances, the entire award in question is liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has contended that the accident has happened on 07.02.2001 and during the course of employment the accident has occurred and the petitioner has sustained injuries and from 07.02.2001 to 20.02.2001 the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient in Rahavendra Nursing Home, Tiruchirapalli and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) after considering the available evidence on record has rightly passed the award and the same is not liable to be set aside. 6. On the basis of the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into as to whether the award in question is really justifiable or not? 7. The consistent case of the respondent/petitioner is that the accident has happened on 07.02.2001 and that too during the course of employment. Due to accident the petitioner has sustained injuries. 8. The defence taken on the side of the respondent is that on 07.02.2001 the petitioner has not reported his duty and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Trichirapalli has given a specific finding to the effect that on 07.02.2001 that is, on the date of accident, the petitioner has served under the respondent. Under the said circumstances the award in question has been passed. 10. On the side of the appellant/respondent concerned attendance register has been marked, wherein it has been clearly stated that on 07.02.2001 the respondent/petitioner has not reported duty and therefore, it is needless to say that on the date of accident that is on 07.02.2001 the petitioner has not served under the respondent. Since the petitioner has not served under the respondent on 07.02.2001 and since the petitioner has not established that the alleged accident has happened in connection with the alleged employment, it is needless to say that the present petition is not legally maintainable. 11. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirapalli without considering the attendance register has erroneously passed the award in question and in view of the discussion made earlier it is very clear that the contention put forth on the side of the appellant/respondent is really having force. 12. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without cost and the award passed in W.C.No.36 of 2003 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Labour), Trichirapalli is set aside and the petition filed in W.C.No.36 of 2003 is dismissed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirapalli Copy to: The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.29214 CMA(MD)No.926 of 2011 25.08.2011 mj SMA/7.9.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/