2012 (11) TMI 738 - HC - Indian Laws

Workmen s Compensation Act - one Chellapandian, who was engaged for the construction of water treatment plant died in the course of accident arising out of his employment - compensation - contention raised by the petitioner that the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour II has no jurisdiction to straight away pass the award of compensation without adjudicating the issue by not only making them liable to pay the compensation but also fixing the liability of compensation- Held that - Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai-6 to receive objections from the petitioner and thereafter to adjudicate the liability issue regarding making payment, determine the same after giving opportunity to exercise power under Section 19 and 20 of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 In terms of Section 10-B of the Act, in case of any fatal accident or serious bodily injuries, it requires the employer to give appropriate notice to the Commissioner and apart from the same, liability of the Principal employer in case of contractor failed to pay the same is also vested under the Act - Contractor is prohibited from the payment of liability under Section 17 of the Workmen s Compensation Act and it has been declared as null and void and any settlement of compensation in respect of fatal injuries must be in satisfactory to the authorities.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner to award compensation without adjudication
Jurisdiction over determination of compensation between State and Central Government
Maintainability of writ petition when alternative remedy is available

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner to award compensation without adjudication
The petitioner, an Engineering Contractor, challenged a communication from the Deputy Commissioner for Labour directing the deposit of a specific sum as compensation for a worker's fatal accident. The petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to award compensation without proper adjudication and determining liability. The Court noted that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Commissioner has the role of investigator, adjudicator, and executor. The petitioner's argument regarding lack of jurisdiction was dismissed, and the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to receive objections and adjudicate the liability issue, allowing the parties to present evidence.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction over determination of compensation between State and Central Government
The petitioner argued that since the work was allotted by Neyveli Lignite Corporation, jurisdiction over determining compensation should rest with Central Government authorities, not State Government officials. The Court emphasized the statutory provisions under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which require the employer to notify the Commissioner in case of fatal accidents or injuries. It was highlighted that the Act also holds the Principal employer liable in case the contractor fails to pay compensation. The Court clarified that the Contractor is prohibited from making payments under Section 17 of the Act, and any settlement must be satisfactory to the authorities.

Issue 3: Maintainability of writ petition when alternative remedy is available
The Court addressed the issue of the writ petition's maintainability when an alternative remedy, such as an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, was available. The petitioner relied on precedents to argue that the existence of an alternative remedy should not bar the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. However, the Court cited various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that when parties have an alternative statutory remedy, a writ petition against the Commissioner's order is not maintainable. The Court dismissed the writ petition, highlighting the importance of following the statutory remedies provided by law and avoiding bypassing the established legal procedures.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction for the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate the liability issue regarding compensation payment, emphasizing the statutory framework of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the importance of following established legal procedures and remedies.