( 1 ) HEARD Sri Parameswara Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant and Government pleader for Appeals representing the respondents.

( 2 ) THE following substantial questions of law arise for consideration, in the present second Appeal: (1) Whether the deduction of money from the bills of appellant/contractor without there being an adjudication under Section 12 of the Workmen s compensation Act be sustained? (2) Whether withdrawing of the amount on the ground that compensation had been awarded to the heirs of the deceased workman from the appellant/contractor without making him as a party to the claim and without following due procedure be in accordance with law? both the Counsel advanced elaborate submissions. The Counsel for appellant placed strong reliance on Triveedhi peerayya v. Executive Engineer.

( 3 ) C. V. Subba Reddy, the unsuccessful plaintiff, being aggrieved by the reversing judgment made in A. S. No. 26/93 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, reversing the Judgment made in o. S. No. 116/87 on the file of Subordinate judge, Gudur had preferred the present second Appeal.

( 4 ) THE appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,856-50 with future interest @ 12%. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a first class contractor of civil works and entered into an agreement with defendants to construct administrative building at Telugu Ganga project Colony, Mamillapalli village, cuddapah Mandal during the year 1986 and completed the same. The plaintiff, to his surprise, came to know that one venkataramana said to have been employed by him in doing plastering work fell down sustaining injuries and ultimately expired in the Government Hospital, cuddapah on 16-4-1986. The plaintiff had personally and in writing stated that he had nothing to do with the deceased employee janapati Venkataramana without any liability to pay the compensation under Workmen s compensation Act. Defendants 1 and 2 who are the employees under 3rd defendant had been persuading the matter with the Commissioner for Workmen s compensation, Kurnool Region and had been trying to implicate the plaintiff for payment of compensation without any actual and legal basis. On 28-2-1987 the Commissioner for Workmen s compensation, Kurnool Division also appears to have decided to pay the amount of Rs. 32,536-50 to the heirs of Janapati venkataramana and directed the 1st defendant to deposit the amount by way of demand draft in favour of the Commissioner, kurnool on State Bank of India, Kurnool branch. The direction excludes the liability of plaintiff to pay the said amount. The plaintiff had been asserting that he is not liable for the accident and also not liable to pay the compensation to the heirs of the deceased venkataramana. On 21-10-1986 the son of late Venkataramana issued lawyer s notice to the plaintiff and also the 2nd defendant demanding compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and a suitable reply was given by the plaintiff. That being so, while making the final payment of all the works executed by the plaintiff the 1st defendant on 13-/-1987 deducted a sum of Rs. 32,536-50 ps. from the total bill amount in spite of the resistances made by the plaintiff without any authority arbitrarily and unlawfully withheld the said amount and hence the suit.

( 5 ) THE 1st defendant filed written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 and 3. The fact that the work was done by the plaintiff is not in dispute. It was further pleaded that one Janapati Venkataramana, one of the employees of the plaintiff in the said work died while he was on duty and the same was reported to the Executive engineer that the employee of the plaintiff died in the course of the work under the plaintiff on 16-4-1986. The same was informed to the higher authorities in Form b . The injured Venkataramana died on 16-4-1986 and the same was informed to the secretary of the Government and also to the deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurno