The Superintending Engineer vs Harijana Lakshmi Kanthamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 220 AP

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

           CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.95 of 2005

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated

31.12.2003 of the Commissioner under workmen's Compensation Act-

cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur (for short,

'Commissioner') in W.C.No.10 of 2002(F).

2. The 2nd respondent before the Commissioner is the appellant.

The respondents 1 to 4 were the applicants (claimants) and the 1st

respondent before the Commissioner is the 5th respondent in this appeal.

3. Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad, Son of Sri Pedda Obulesu

was a Village Electricity Worker at Yadiki Gram Panchayat. The 1st

respondent is the wife, the 4th respondent is the mother and the

respondents 2 and 3 are the daughter and son respectively of Sri Harijana

Babu Rajendra Prasad. He died due to a fall from an electric pole while

working on it near Ankalamma street, Yadiki village, when he was

attending to repairs of LT & HT lines managed by the appellant, who is

representing A.P.Transco.

4. Cr.No.43 of 1999 of Yadiki Police Station was registered under

Section 174 Cr.P.C. on a complaint by Sri Ramash Babu, brother of the

deceased, in respect of the above incident. This incident, according to the

respondents 1 to 4 occurred during and in the course of employment for

the appellant as well as the 5th respondent.

5. On such basis, they claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-

against the appellant as well as the 5th respondent on the ground that the MVR,J CMA No.95 of 2005

deceased was being paid monthly wages of Rs.600/-, by the appellant

through the 5th respondent.

6. The 5th respondent filed a counter before the commissioner

stating that the deceased was being paid Rs.600/- per month towards

salary and Rs.600/- as grant-in-aid paid by the appellant. It also admitted

the nature of the incident and being the cause for death of the deceased

while contending that he was working under the directions of the

appellant.

7. The appellant also filed a detailed counter before the

Commissioner denying the entire incident as well as the deceased being

employed on its behalf as a worker. Disputing that the incident occurred

leading to death of the deceased during and in the course of employment

on its behalf, the appellant contended that the deceased was employed as

Village Electricity Worker under the 5th respondent and thus, denied the

jural relationship of 'master and servant' between itself and the deceased

at the time of the accident. It also contended that attending to repairs at

the electric pole at the time of the accident by the deceased was in

violation of appointment orders issued to the deceased and thus, it denied

its liability while also questioning the quantum of compensation claimed.

8. On the material and pleadings, the Commissioner settled the

following issues for the purpose of enquiry.

"1. Whether the deceased was in the employment of the OP and whether the deceased died during the course of his employment and worker within the meaning of the Act?

2. If yes, to what compensation the applicants are entitled?

3. Who are the dependants and legal heirs to receive the compensation amount?"

MVR,J CMA No.95 of 2005

9. Before the Commissioner, the 1st respondent examined himself as

A.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. No evidence was let in on behalf of the

5th respondent. Whereas R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the appellant

and did not mark any document on its behalf.

10. Basing on such material, the Commissioner accepted the claim

of the respondents 1 to 4 holding that at the time of the incident the

deceased was working for the appellant and that it occurred during and in

the course of such employment. Thus holding, the appellant as well as the

5th respondent were directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,19,940/- to the

respondents 1 to 4 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the

order, in default to pay interest at 9% p.a. thereon from the date of the

accident till realisation.

11. The appellant has questioned this order in this Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal raising various grounds.

12. Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant,

addressed arguments on its behalf. None represented the respondents

1 to 4 or the 5th respondent in this appeal though they are served notices.

13. Now, the following points arise for determination:

1. Whether this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is maintainable in the manner presented and if it violates Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act?

2. Whether there existed relationship of 'workman and employer' between the deceased and the appellant on the date of the accident?

3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and appropriate?

MVR,J CMA No.95 of 2005

4. To what relief?

Point No.1:-

14. The appellant has presented this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation upon

a claim presented by the respondents 1 to 4 under Section 22 of the

Workmen's Compensation Act. An appeal against the order of the

Commissioner has to be presented under Section 30 of the Workmen's

Compensation Act, which reads as under:

"30. Appeals. - (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:-

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;

.......................

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal ...............:

................................."

15. In terms thereof, unless the substantial question of law is

involved in the appeal, no appeal shall be entertained. It is for the

appellant to set out in the grounds of appeal such substantial questions of

law, which require consideration and determination in the appeal.

16. As seen from the memorandum of appeal, the appellant did

not set out substantial questions of law required to be determined in this

appeal. Grounds as such set out in the memorandum, questioning the

order under appeal, cannot be elevated to the status of substantial

questions of law.

17. Therefore, on this ground alone this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

is not maintainable, since there is infraction of Section 30 of the

Workmen's Compensation Act.

MVR,J CMA No.95 of 2005

18. Hence, the same is incompetent nor can lie.

19. Thus, this point is answered.

Point No.2:-

20. The deceased Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad was a Village

Electricity Worker in Yadiki Gram Panchayat. It is not in dispute that he

died on account of the injuries received at about 3.30 p.m. on 22.07.1999

due to fall from an electric pole where he was working. It was near

Ankalamma street in Yadiki village this accident occurred. The death of Sri

Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad is not in dispute nor the manner in which

he died, as deposed by his wife as A.W.1, is seriously disputed on behalf

of the 5th respondent or the appellant. In fact, the 5th respondent

admitted in the counter the nature of death suffered by Sri Harijana Babu

Rajendra Prasad. Thus, this fact is established.

21. It is the contention of the respondents 1 to 4 before the

Commissioner that Sri Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad was working for the

appellant though he was Village Electricity Worker within the Gram

Panchayat of Yadiki. The material on record discloses that he was in fact

working for the appellant.

22. Sri K.Siva Prasad Reddy, Additional Divisional Engineer, was

examined on behalf of the appellant before the Commissioner. Though he

deposed that the deceased was employed by the 5th respondent, the

testimony of Sri K. Siva Prasad Reddy reflects that he, in fact attended on

the deceased when he was admitted in the hospital. Ex.A4 is the salary

certificate disclosing that the deceased was receiving salary during the

period from 01.07.1999 to 31.07.1999 and that he received such wages MVR,J CMA No.95 of 2005

from the appellant. Issuance of Ex.A4 by A.P.Transco was also admitted

by Sri Siva Prasad Reddy.

23. When these circumstances are taken into consideration, the

contention of the respondents 1 to 4 that the deceased was working for

the appellant cannot be brushed aside.

24. Ex.A6 is the legal notice issued on behalf of the respondents

1 to 4, to which the appellant did not issue any reply. However, it was

replied to as seen from Ex.A7 by Yadiki Gram Panchayat (R5). In this reply

notice the Gram Panchayat stated that the deceased was appointed by

A.P.Transco and that he was always attending to the duties of

A.P.Transco which was paying him wages. It also makes clear that Yadiki

Gram Panchayat did not pay any wages to the deceased.

25. These circumstances were taken into consideration by the

Commissioner in recording a finding that there subsisted the jural

relationship of 'workman and employer' between the deceased Sri

Harijana Babu Rajendra Prasad and the appellant.

26. Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant,

strenuously contended that the very nature of employment of the

deceased as Village Electricity Worker clearly indicated that he was

working for the 5th respondent Gram Panchayat and that he was not

directly employed by the appellant nor appointed by it. The learned

Standing Counsel further contended that no proof was laid before the

Commissioner in that context to prove the jural relationship.

27. However, the material discussed above clearly proved such

jural relationship between the deceased and the appellant. Therefore, the MVR,J CMA No.95 of 2005

contentions so advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant, cannot stand.

28. Considering the wages of the deceased at Rs.1,200/-, applying

appropriate factor at 199.40, the Commissioner arrived at a compensation

of Rs.1,19,640/-.

29. The respondents 1 to 4 did not question the order of the

Commissioner seeking enhancement of compensation or otherwise.

Therefore, in as much as the Commissioner has applied the right

indicators to award such compensation basing on the material, it has to

be held that the order under appeal requires no interference. Thus, this

point is answered.

Point No.3:

30. The Commissioner has discussed the material on record in

proper perspective and recorded appropriate findings. There is absolutely

no requirement to interfere with the same. Thus, this point is answered.

Point No.4:

31. In view of the findings on points 1 to 3, this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal has to be dismissed confirming the order of the learned

Commissioner.

32. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, the order of the Commissioner under Workmen's

Compensation Act cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur in

W.C.No.10 of 2002(F) dated 31.12.2003 is confirmed. The Commissioner

is directed to release the balance amount, if any, to respondents 1 to 4, MVR,J CMA No.95 of 2005

strictly as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act without

insisting for any security.

As sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA Dt:20.01.2021 RR MVR,J CMA No.95 of 2005

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 95 of 2005

Dt:20.01.2021

RR