High Court · 2025

THID HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI(ANTI APPEAL oF 20L4 JUDGMENT: 'rhis civil miscellaneous appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.Lo.2o11 passed in w.c.No.1 of 2006 F on the file of the commissioner for workmen,s comp,3llsation and Deputy commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad.

2. I{eard Mr. A. chandra Shekar, Iearned counsel for appellirnts, Mr. shaila D, learned counsel representing Mr. N. Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

3. f,ppellants are opposite party Nos.l to 3 (Northern Power Distribution company Limited (NPDCL)) and respondents are the applicants before the commissioner. Appliczmts are 'nife and children of the deceased workman, (Devasirri Pochanna) was aged 2s years, working as Electri<:ian in NPDCL, engaged by appelrants (NPDCL) at Aloor Village under AAE Operation, Degaon. On 19-o4-2',oo5 at 9:2o A.M., while the deceased was attending \ 2 JAK' J C.M.A.No.352 -2014 electrical work at Transformer No.34/SS repairing AB Switch, he died of shock on the Transformer. A case in crime No.82 of 2o05 was registered, lnquest and Post Mortem of the deceased was conducted by duty Doctor at Government HosPital; Armoor'

4.Applicants,wifeandtwominorchildrenofdeceased, claimed, a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-' Opposite party (NPDCL) contend'ed that there was no employer - employee relationship between NPDCL and the deceased and the lineman could not have engaged a third party' Exgratia amount of Rs.20,OO0/- was paid on 24'02'2006' An amount of Rs.5O,0O0/- was arranged by staff members of the Company, Commissioner, after considering the entire factual matrix, by ord'er dated 27'lO'2OlL' awarded a compensation of Rs.4, 16,792l-' the amount is paid'

5. Learned Commissioner held that AE (RW' 1) had deposed that an amount of Rs'20,000/- was paid as exgratia, and also deposed that it is the full and final satisfaction of the entire claim or liability. Learned commissioner held that no stranger would dare to climb a a I **r*-..,{-Jt*!,l* +..- / 3 JAK, J C.M.A.No.352 2014 live current line, Commissioner, after examining the documents i.e., Exs.Al to A5 and Exs.Bl to B4, held no consumor would engage/seek person other than the department

6. Learned Standing Counsel for appellants - NPDCL submittr:d that deceased was not an employee on the rolls of department. It is submitted that deceased ventured on his own to attend the repair work. The non-functioning of Transformer No.34/SS and attempted to repair the AB Switch in the early hours of L9.04.2005, without any prior intimatir>n or authorization from the concerned departmental personnel. It is further submitted that if any personnel of the department, on a Complaint/Grievance, intend to undertake repair work or address any malfunction'of a Transformer, the personnel must obtain line clearance from concerned authorities of electrical sub-station. It is thereafter department personnel can attend the grievance/ complaint.

7. It is submitted that in the present case, no such grievance/complaint brought to the notice of € 4 JAK, J C.M.A.No.352_2014 department. That the alleged employment of the deceased by a Contractor must be established by documentary evidence, in order to substantiate that the deceased was a 'workman' within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act, 1923'). That the Commissioner erred both factually and legally in awarding compensation to applicants. It is also submitted that in the absence of any evidence of an employer-employee relationship, finding by the Commissioner to the effect and the award of compensation is unsustainable. That no evidence was placed on record to establish such a relationship, except an assertion that deceased was being paid Rs.2OOl- per day.

8. Learned counsel for 'respondents-applicants submitted that deceased was employed by a lineman (employee of department) and that on the fateful day, the lineman was very much present at the work spot. It is further submitted that any repair work of electrical line has to be undertaken only in the presence of the Lineman. That the deceased on instructions of staff attempted to replace - --'r.# 5 JAK, J C.M.A.No.352 2014 the damaged female contact of the 11 KV switch, and unfortunately, while doing so, sustained an electric shock and died at the site of 11 KV fuse channel.

9. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Ex.AS, a Form, for recording electrical accidents under Service Rule 44-A. (It is submitted that at Clause No.15, the nanne and designation(s) of the persons assisting, supervising the persons killed or injured is reflected as A. Buchanna' (lineman)). That at Clause No.2O of the Form, the n€une and designations of persons present and witn,:ssea ifre accident, the n€une of A. Buchanna, Lineman (Aloc,r) is reflected. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this court to clause No.6, where n€une of the deceased is reflected. Learned counsel further invited the attention of this court to a Memo in which the lineman i.e., A. E;uchanna was placed under suspension. [n Clause No.12 of form, it is recorded that deceased died on the spot. Form is attested by Assistant Divisionar Engineer (operations) and a copy was submitted to superintendent Engineer. In the police report, written in Telugu, it is 6 JAK, J C.M.A.No.352 2014 recorded that body of deceased was lying on Transformer No.34/SS and in the presence of panchas, bofV was brought down, injuries were found on the head, blood was oozing, on the right hand at the wrist, it was burnt; on the left knee, an injury due to current shock was also found and that on the left leg, skin was burnt.

10. Learned counsel contended that FIR, complaint and letter dated 2O.O4.2O25 annexed as document uide Memo in USR.No.37348 of 2025 establish that deceased, Pochanna, was indeed associated with the department and engaged as a contract labour regularly attending to electrical repair works as a part of the team led by lineman. That Commissioner righfly appreciated the facts in proper perspective, after considering the' exhibits marked, the depositions of AW.1 , AW.2 and RW.1 and no interference is necessitated in the order of Commissioner. 1 1. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, considered rival submissions. L2. Submissions of the department is 7 JAK, J C.M.A.No.352 2014 "Whether the deceased was in a employer- employee relationship with the appellants/ Opposite Parties I to 3 i.e., the Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, who claimed to be the employer, and whether the lineman was authorized to engage the services of a third party."

13. De<:eased, Devasari Pochanna, while attending the electrical repair work at Transformer No.34/SS repairing AB Swit,:h at about 9.2O A.M., on 19.O4.2OO5, received electrical shock and died on the spot. Body of the deceased was tyirrg on the Transformer with injuries and was brought down in the presence of panchas. An exgratia amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid

24.02.2006 by Assistant Engineer, he was exarnined as RW. 1. RW. 1 in his evid,:nce deposed that the exgratia amount awarded was for a non-departmental fatal accident. He also deposed that it rvas awarded as full and final settlement of the entire clrrim, liability. Commissioner in his order held that statements are contradictory and do not inspire confidence.

14. In Ex.AS - copy of electrical accident report form for recording electrical accidents, dated 20.O4.2OO5 (under Rule 44-A), it is reflected that linemEln Buchanna along _---__.q 8 JAK. J C.M.A.No 352-2014 with the deceased went to the Sub Station obtained line clear No.014165 for attending the electrical repair work at the transformer.

15. Clause Nos.15 and 20 of the Form are relevant. On a perusal of Clause Nos.15 and 20, it is clear that deceased was assisting the supervising person, the person present at the accident spot is none other than the lineman, A. Buchanna. At Clause No.15, it is recorded as follows: "15. Name & Design.(s) of the persons assisting supervising the person(s) killed or injured : A. Buchanna LMI 4

16. At Clause No.2O, it is recorded as follows: LMI "20. Name & Designations of persons present at and witnessed the accident : A. Buchanna LMlrl.."

17. The contention advanced that there is no employer - employee relationship cannot be held to be valid for the reason that it was in the presence of the lineman that the deceased climbed the Transformer for attending repair work of AB switch. 9 JAK, J C.M.A.No.352 2014

18. Supply of electricity is an essential requirement and the repair work of electrical lines is a job prone to risk as the lines transmit high voltage Direct Current (DC). 'LC is obtaineC by the lineman who is in-charge of the particular areaf zone. It is observed from the form that lineman was present at the time of the accident. Lineman, being an employt:e of the Corporation, should not have permitted the deceased, department cannot disown the relationship of employr:r-employee, unless evidence to the contrar5r is led. But, on the contrary, contradicting statements are made before the Commissioner, staff members arranged a sum of Rs.50,O0O/- to the applicants. An amount of Rs.20,0OO/- is paid as exgratia, as final settlement of the entire c1aim. The cor.tribution of staff members reinforces the fact thaf the decr:ased was worki.rg on contract basis and attending to repair works, it is not disputed that an amount of Rs.2OOl - was being paid per day.

19. Plrcing reliance on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court hr M.P. Electricitg Board a. Shail Kumari and -,,-' l0 JAK, J C.M.A.No.352 2014 Otherst, it was contended that liability is cast upon the department, doctrine of strict liability, if applied. to the present facts and circumstances of the case, the department has to bear the liability and that there is no error in the order of Commissioner holding that opposite parties are liable for payment of compensation.

20. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in C.M.A.No.2852 of 2OI7 on similar facts held that Act, t923, being a welfare legislation, granted compensation to the claimants of the deceased as the deceased while performing electrical repair work on the electrical poles, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Opposite parties in C.M.A. therein (department) raised the same contention that deceased was not engaged for performing the duties of the electricity board and that he was not a workman of the department.

21. In the present case too, the opposite parties (department) have taken a similar stand, the judgment '1zooz12scc t6z 1 JAK, J C.M.A.No.352_2014 a I rendered by the learned Singre Judge of the High court of Madras; is applicable to the facts of the present case.

22. Lt:arned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Gottumukkala Appalo'. Nqraslmhq. Raju qnd, others a. Natronal rnsuro,nce compang Limited and. Anotherz. The Hon,ble Apex crrurt, while dealing with the delinition of workman as defined under section 2(1)(n) of the Act, 1923, held that unless there is proof to establish the contract of employrnent, the compensation cannot be awarded to the workman. That in the present case, no such proof of contract of employment was adduced and that the commissioner fetl into error in not considering the facts in proper llerspective. Learned counsel submitted that the commissioner erred in raw and in facts, hence, the compensration awarded be set aside.

23. Perused the judgments, it is pertinent to note certain facts as :ulled out from the record. In the form i.e., Ex.AS under Rule 44-A, clause Nos.15 and 20 it is reflected that '1zoot1 13 soc 446 t2 JAK, J C.M.A.No.352 2014 the lineman was very much present at the spot when the repair work was being undertaken (contents are extracted supra). Lineman has taken line clearance. No other proof is adduced that line clearance is taken for any other work other than this repair work. Commissioner considered the fact of payment of exgratia, as fuIl and final settlement, statement of RW.1. The fact that deceased was being paid Rs.2OO/- cannot be ignored by this court. commissioner concluded on the basis of the record and the evidence adduced. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner.

24. The Honble Apex Court in Gollq Raianna and others U. Diaisional Manager and Another3, held as follows: "1O. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's the last Compensation Commissioner is authbrity on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal onlv to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunatelv, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disabiliff for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High \ 3 1zon1l scc 45 t3 JAK, J C.M.A.No.352_20t4 Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.,,

25. The said principle enunciated in Golta Rajcinna,s case (3 supra) has been reiterated in judgment of Fulmati Dhramd.ea Yad.a o and. another a. New India Assurance Co. Ltol. and d,nother4.ln ttre facts and circumstances of the cas,:, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises fcr consideration. C.M.A. is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

26. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands clismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand cl(lsed. sd/- N. sRtHARt DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, [oPUcl of Labcrur at Nizamabad.

1. The Cc,mmissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner 2. One CO to SRl. A CHANDRA SHAKER ( SC FOR NPDCL) Advocate 3. One CC to SRl. N. MUKUNDA REDDY RAV| Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD CoDies \qr o 2023 SCC C,nline sc I lo5 HIGH COUIRT DATED:,0a+10412O25 JUDGMENT CMA.No.352: ot2014 t THE S ( 2 1 [[q 2flin :i * .:{Is",o -^Lqtl-)-'-, t'; DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS G *{ult X(-