IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 1926 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- WCC.2/2003 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER (S): --------------------------- ANTONY I THADIKARAN, AGED 58, S/O. ITTOOP C.THADIKARAN, MOOZHIKULOAM DESOM, KURUMASSERY P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THANKA, W/O.LATE VELU, CHEMMINIYADAN HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA DESOM, KUTTICHIRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001. 2. SANITHA, D/O.LATE VELU, CHEMMINIYADAN HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA DESOM, KUTTICHIRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001. 3. BHARATHAN, S/O. LATE VELU, CHEMMINIYADAN HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA DEOSM, KUTTICHIRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 001. 4. MINI, D/O LATE VELU, CHEMMINIYADAN HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA DEOSM, KUTTICHIRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001. 5. BINDHUMOL, D/O. LATE VELU, CHEMMINIYADAN HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA DESOM, KUTTICHIRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 001. tss OP(C) NO.1926/2011 *6. PMR UMMER, ALATHURPADI, MELMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 505 (DELETED). *7. M/S. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 005.( DELETED). *RESPONDENTS NOS.6 AND 7 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DTD. 23.6.2011 IN IA. 9968/11 IN OPC. 1926/2011 R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY, SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH. R7 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN, SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss OPC. NO.1926/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN W.C.C. 5/2003 BEFORE THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR DTD. 1.1.2003. P2:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DTD. 3.7.03. P3:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.9.04. P4:- COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION DTD. 15.3.2007. P5:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY TO EXT.P4 APPLICATION DTD. 5.5.07. P6:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P4 DTD. 5.2.2008. P7:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE COMMISSIONER ON VARIOUS DATES. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.1926 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T This Original Petition is in challenge of the order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner) (for short “the Commissioner”) allowing amendment of the claim petition filed by respondents 1 to 5 who are the legal heirs of the deceased Velu, a workman who is said to have sustained injuries in the course of his employment and succumbed to it. In the claim petition respondents 1 to 5 stated that the deceased was a workman under the 6th respondent (deleted from the array of parties) who is a Contractor dealing in Bamboos. Later, respondents 1 to 5 filed Ext.P4, application for amendment of the claim petition to state that deceased Velu was working under a Contractor (petitioner) dealing in Reeds and it was by a mistake that it happened to be mentioned in the claim petition that the deceased was working under a Contractor (deleted 6th respondent) who was dealing in Bamboos. Application for amendment was resisted by the O.P(C) No.1926 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner by Ext.P6, objection. The Commissioner as seen from Ext.P7, proceeding passed a one line order on 18.07.2008 allowing the amendment. That order was sought to be reviewed by the petitioner. But the review petition met with the same result on 19.03.2009. Learned counsel contended that the amendment goes to the very root of the claim made by respondents 1 to 5 as to the liability of petitioner to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 5. It is also contended by learned counsel that so far as petitioner is concerned the claim petition is barred by limitation on the day the amendment was sought for and allowed. 2. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that it was by an inadvertent mistake that it was stated in the claim petition that the deceased was a workman under a Contractor (deleted 6th respondent) dealing in Bamboos. In fact he was working under a Contractor (petitioner) dealing in Reeds and the wrong impleadment of the 6th respondent as Contractor (dealing in Bamboos) of the deceased workman in the claim petition was due to an inadvertent mistake which crept in the claim petition. That came to the notice of respondents 1 to 5 on a perusal of the relevant documents. 3. There is no dispute regarding power of the O.P(C) No.1926 of 2011 -: 3 :- Commissioner to allow amendment of the claim petition. Hence that issue is not required to be adjudicated. 4. Next question is whether amendment sought for was to be rejected. True, that it is by a single line order the Commissioner has passed the impugned order. But I am persuaded to look into the claim sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. I stated the circumstances under which respondents 1 to 5 impleaded the 6th respondent (deleted from the array of parties) as a party to the proceeding, instead of petitioner. That arose from the mistaken statement in the claim petition that the deceased workman was working under a Contractor dealing in Bamboos instead of Reeds. Having regard to the circumstances and also considering the fact that the Workmen's Compensation Act is enacted as a social legislation intended to give protection to the workman or his legal representative, I am not inclined to think that I should interfere with the order allowing amendment. If petitioner has a contention that on the day the application for amendment preferred and allowed the claim against petitioner was barred by limitation, it is open to him to plead so. If respondents 1 to 5 have a contention that the delay if any in seeking amendment and/or impleadment is liable to be condoned it is open to them O.P(C) No.1926 of 2011 -: 4 :- to resort to that remedy as well. Original petition is disposed with the above observations. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv