S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) A question seemingly of some importance viz. , as to whether a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes act would be debarred from contesting election under Panchayat Raj Act arises for consideration in the instant case. The petitioner herein works as a general mazdur in Singareni Collieries Company Limited. He contested the election for Mandal parishad Territorial Constituency post of kothagudem and won the same in the year 1995. He was also a representative in panchayat Raj body.

( 2 ) IN terms of the election notification dated 22-6-2001, he filed a nomination on 29-6-2001 before the Election Officer, mandal Parishad, Kothagudem but, the same was rejected stating that "with reference to your letter it is informed that your nomination application No. 173 for m. P. T. C. is rejected on the ground that you are employee in Singareni Collieries company Limited as per Section 18 clause (1) of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. " The petitioner preferred an appeal thereagainst. The same has not yet been disposed of. The petitioner contends that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act, he being a mazdur and having not been holding any Office of profit and in any event, as his duty being not of public character in terms of article 191 of the Constitution, the impugned order of rejection of his nomination must be held to be without any jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned contention has strongly relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in Pradyut bordolot v. Swapan Roy1 and in Aklu Ram mahto v. Rajendra Mahto2.

( 3 ) MR. Ramesh Ranganathan, learned additional Advocate General on the other hand would submit that the disqualification contained in Article 191 of the Constitution of India cannot have any application in the instant case inasmuch as Article 243-F of the constitution is of wide amplitude. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the disqualification contemplated under Article 243-F not only embraces the disqualification for contesting the election for Legislature of the State, but also under A. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The learned Additional Advocate General would urge that the additional disqualification having been provided under the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, the decision of the Apex Court in Pradyut bordolot v. Swapan Roy (supra) shall not apply. The learned Counsel submits that a workman is also an employee as has been held by this Court in J. Sadanandam v. Election Tribunal3 which has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ appeal No. 842 of 1991 disposed of on 6-8-1991.

( 4 ) OUR attention has been drawn to another decision of this Court in Jagam mandaiah v. Singath Paddaiah4 wherein while interpreting Section 17 of the A. P. Gram panchayats Act, it has been held that a worker is also an employee. Strong reliance has also been placed on Employees State insurance Corpn. , v. Apex Engineering Pvt, ltd. 5.

( 5 ) IN any event, contends the learned counsel, that as the election is scheduled to be held on 12-7-2001, the remedy of the petitioner would only be to file an election petition in terms of Section 233 of the Act read with Rule 12 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995. 5-A. Section 18 (1) of the said Act reads thus: section 18. Disqualification of certain office holders, etc. . : (1) No village servant and no officer or servant of the government of India or any State government or of a local authority or an employee of any institution receiving aid from the funds of the government and no office bearer of any body constituted under a law made by the Legislature of the State or of Parliament shall be qualified for being chosen as or for being a member of a Gram Panchayat. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, the expression "village servant" means in relation to- (I) the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document