Gunasekaran, v. Thulasi Mani,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.07.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and CMP (MD) Nos.2068, 2080, 2127 & 2140 of 2026 C.R.P(MD)No.462 of 2026 Gunasekaran ... Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

1.Thulasi Mani 2.Minor Logeshwaran 3.Minor Pradeep (Respondents 2 and 3 are minors represented by their mother and natural guardian, the first respondent, Thulasi Mani.) 4.Goventhan .... Respondents/ Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order in I.A.No,.103 of 2025 in W.C.No.76 of 2023 on the file of the Employee Compensation Tribunal Dindigul District dated 18.12.2025 and allow the above IA. 1/8

C.R.P(MD)No.466 of 2026 Gunasekaran ... Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

1.K.Kalaimani 2.Goventhan .... Respondents/ Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order in I.A.No.104 of 2025 in W.C.No.77 of 2023 on the file of the Employee Compensation Tribunal Dindigul District dated 18.12.2025 and allow the above IA. C.R.P(MD)No.476 of 2026 Gunasekaran ... Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

1. Mariyayi

2. Minor.Darshan (2nd respondent is minor represented by their mother and natural guardian, the first respondent) 3.Goventhan .... Respondents/ Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order in I.A.No.106 of 2/8

2025 in W.C.No.89 of 2023 on the file of the Employee Compensation Tribunal Dindigul District dated 18.12.2025 and allow the above IA. C.R.P(MD)No.480 of 2026 Gunasekaran ... Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

1. Vijayalakshmi

2. Minor.Kanishka 3.Minor. Monika 4.Minor. Sashmitha (2nd to 4th respondents are minor represented by their mother and natural guardian, the first respondent) 5.Goventhan .... Respondents/ Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order in I.A.No.105 of 2025 in W.C.No.78 of 2023 on the file of the Employee Compensation Tribunal Dindigul District dated 18.12.2025 and allow the above IA. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arivu Chandran (in all CRPs) For Respondents : No appearance (in all CRPs) 3/8

COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner, to set aside the order passed in E.P.No.54 of 2008, in I.A.Nos. 103 to 106 of 2025 in W.C.Nos.76, 77, 89 and 78 of 2023 on the file of the Employee Compensation Tribunal, Dindigul District, dated 18.12.2025.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Though the names of the respondents are printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

3. The petitioner, in all the civil revision petitions, is the owner of the property. The respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased employee. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being the owner of the land, entrusted the construction of a building to a contractor. The contractor, in turn, engaged the deceased workman for carrying out the construction work. During the course of employment, the deceased lost his life. Thereafter, the 4/8

respondents/claimants filed separate claim petitions before the Labour Commissioner, Dindigul, claiming compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

4. The petitioner filed separate interlocutory applications seeking to conduct the enquiry at the Karur Camp Office so as to enable the claimants, who are residing at Karur, the contractor, who is also residing at Karur and the petitioner, who is likewise residing at Karur, to conveniently participate in the proceedings.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that, as per Section 21 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the proceedings may be conducted before the Commissioner within whose jurisdiction the accident took place, where the dependants claiming compensation ordinarily reside or where the employer has his registered office. In the present case, all the concerned parties are residing at Karur. Therefore, for the convenience of all parties, the enquiry ought to be conducted at the Karur Camp Office instead of Dindigul. However, the applications were dismissed. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petitions have been filed before this Court.

5/8

6. Considering the nature of the proceedings and the convenience of all parties, this Court is of the view that, since the claimants, contractor and the petitioner/landowner are all residing at Karur, conducting the enquiry at the Karur Camp Office would be appropriate and the rejection of the petitioner's request is not sustainable.

7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 18.12.2025 are set aside. The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, Dindigul, is directed to conduct the enquiry in all the claim petitions at the Karur Camp Office for the convenience of the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

02.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No PKN 6/8

To

1. The Employee Compensation Tribunal, Dindigul District. 2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

M.DHANDAPANI ,J.

PKN 02.07.2026 8/8