‘Parents of deceased also eligible for relief’

Justice S Vaidyanathan while dismissing the plea held that “Even assuming for the sake of argument that the children of petitioner have got to be treated as dependants, the amount of compensation must be apportioned from the money payable to their mother and not from the amount payable to the parents of the deceased employee.” 

As per the case, Subramaniyan, while working as machine operator in Sivaganga, suffered a grave injury and subsequently died owing to the same. Based on a claim petition filed by his wife Thilagavathi under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, an award of Rs 5.75 lakh was passed by the Tribunal. However, based on the enquiry officer’s report, the children of the deceased were excluded from the array of dependents and the father and mother of the deceased were included as dependents. The children were excluded as the Act barred treating children who had crossed 18 years as dependents. 

Aggrieved by this, Thilagavathi approached the Madurai Bench seeking to quash the order and direct the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to pay the entire compensation to her and her children. She had submitted that since the Act contemplates that dependant means widow, a minor son, an unmarried daughter or a widowed mother, who alone are eligible to receive the compensation and since the mother of her deceased husband is not a widow, the question of granting compensation to the parents did not arise at all. 

On the other hand, the parents had contended that they were dependent on their deceased son and that due to ill-feeling, his wife had deserted him and did not live with him during his last two years. Moreover, it was the father, who took care of his medical expenses.

Inspector denied lawyer’s assistance in department inquiry

The Madras High Court has declined to permit a suspended Inspector of Police to engage a lawyer to defend himself in a departmental enquiry against him since the enquiry officer is a lawyer.

Justice S Vaidyanathan on dismissing the plea moved by the suspended inspector as devoid of merits, said “It is admitted on both sides that the presenting officer is not a legally trained man and the ground raised that the enquiry officer is a law graduate cannot be the valid ground for seeking the assistance of a lawyer to defend him in the enquiry.” The petitioner S Gopinathpandian, who worked as the Inspector of Police, Control Room, Dindigul, was placed under suspension based on two criminal cases pending against him at the Judicial Magistrate Court in Nilakottai. A departmental enquiry was also initiated for the grave charges. 

But since the enquiry officer happens to be a law graduate, Gopinathpandian had sought permission to allow him engage a lawyer to cross examine the witnesses. But with the Inquiry officer, Prohibition Department, denying him permission, he moved the Madurai Bench seeking relief. His council had submitted that since the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, assistance of an advocate is required. Moreover, as the enquiry officer happens to be a lawyer, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to defend himself effectively before the enquiry officer with the assistance of an advocate. Justice Vaidyanathan on striking down the judgements relied on by the petitioner’s counsel as irrelevant to the present case, directed the enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry on a day-to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond seven working days.