Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Wednesday, Jul 18, 2007
ePaper


News
Features
Stocks
Cross Currency
Shipping
Archives
Google

Group Sites

Corporate - Courts/Legal Issues
States - Tamil Nadu
HC ruling on workmen’s compensation law

Our Legal Correspondent

Chennai, July 17 The Workmen’s Compensation Act, being a social welfare legislation, could not be allowed to be stultified by protracted litigation indulged in by petitioner, who was an employer, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled. The Commissioner of Labour, who was deemed to be a public officer within the meaning of Section 5 of Revenue Recovery Act, 1990, might recover any amount payable by any person under said Act, Mr Justice K. Chandru held.

Petitioner, running a spinning mill, and an employee (Sethu Asari) died due to an accident on 19-5-1999 during course of his employment. A claim application under Workmen’s Compensation Act was made against petitioner, which finally resulted in the Additional Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner ordering a sum of Rs 1,17,410 in favour of legal representatives of deceased.

The Additional Labour Commissioner had requested District Collector, Tuticorin, by order dated 3-8-2004 to recover said sum as arrear of land revenue from petitioner.

Petitioner contended that as Section 31 of Workmen’s Compensation Act,1890 referred to provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, then recovery had to be done in conformity with said Act, and present order was done contrary to Section 5 of Revenue Recovery Act.The Judge held that submissions of petitioner were to avoid statutory payment. He was unnecessarily harassing respondents for past 8 years. Petitioner was unable to state whether any appeal had been preferred against original order of Additional Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. There was nothing wrong in Commissioner ordering District Collector to recover amount.

The Court directed District Collector to recover the amount within a period of 3 weeks and report compliance. Under these circumstances, writ petition was misconceived, and hence same stood dismissed, except to directions contained as stated above.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Social Security | Tamil Nadu

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page



Stories in this Section
Reliance confirms Cauvery find


Fiat offering bi-fuel engine option in its models
ITC Foods spices up the organic way
Ford’s new car qualifies for excise relief
IVRCL bags Rs 202-cr contracts
DSCL to raise sourcing from China
HC ruling on workmen’s compensation law
Birla Corp looks at raising cement production capacity
Posco firm on implementing Orissa project
Saudi group to set up $25-m manufacturing plant in India
Tatipaka mini refinery capacity to be doubled
MTNL gets Rs 1,461-cr IT refund
GVFL to raise Rs 300 cr by 2010
Trayons reopening likely before Onam
GTC Industries out of BIFR net
Jessop plans tie-ups with global cos
Renault Design India to play bigger role
Orchid Chem launching 3 products in US this year
Interest impact
Cheaper air travel hits Volvo bus sales
BHEL boiler consignment flagged off
Punjab Tractors gets new Chairman


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line