IMPORTANT POINT
A writ petition cannot be maintained when an effective statutory remedy exists under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the order of the 1st respondent herein i.e., the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narasaraopet passed in E.C.Case No. 06/2018, dated 31.08.2021 directing the petitioner herein to pay the compensation and making him jointly and severally liable for the amount that was awarded to the tune of Rs.7,64,780/- as bad, illegal, arbitrary opposed to law and pass such other order or orders…”

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner herein is a Power Generation Corporation which undertakes to generate power and includes hydral, thermal and solar power and is responsible for maintaining all the plants in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 3rd respondent herein by name Sri Gottam Chinna Brahmareddy was awarded contract for the work with regard to the Nagarjuna Sagar Tail Pond Dam (NSTPD) which is the contract for HT and LT supplies, control panels of radial gates, dewatering pumps in the inspection gallery, illumination on main dam and assistance to ADE & AE’s of Electrical Services Sub-Division at N.S.T.P. dam site near Satrasala village. While so, the 2nd respondent’s late husband was engaged by the 3rd respondent being a contractor for the execution of the work as the 2nd respondent’s husband was a skilled contract labour and resident of Balempally Village, Adavidevarapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2(i) The 2nd respondent’s husband by name Ramavat Redya Naik attended to the dam gallery for duty and at around 12.30 p.m., it was reported by his colleague that Redya Naik was found unconscious on the floor at the dam gallery site. As per the procedure, initial report in Form-A was sent to the Joint Commissioner of Labour and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur on 02.11.2016 for information. Thereafter, while undergoing treatment, the husband of the 2nd respondent died.

2(ii) The further case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent herein insured in the name of the 2nd respondent’s husband and the particulars of the insured policy is covered by the 4th respondent which shows that the 2nd respondent’s deceased husband was working under the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is no way concerned with the said insurance policy since the deceased person is working under a contractor, who was entrusted the work as specified in the agreement. Thus, there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the deceased husband of the 2nd respondent. However, the issue in question is that payment of compensation is totally involved in between the 3rd and 4th respondents as the 3rd respondent herein is a contractor and the 4th respondent is the National Insurance Company, who covered the insurance policy of the deceased. But, ignoring the crucial facts borne out by record and without there being any evidence adduced by the 2nd respondent herein, the 1st respondent came to a conclusion basing upon the employment, incident, death etc., of the deceased mentioned in the FIR, post mortem report and as per the admission by the 3rd respondent herein, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act.

2(iii) The finding of the Court below is contradictory for the reason that on one side it was held that the deceased is a casual labour engaged by the 3rd respondent. But, on the other side the calculation for the compensation was arrived at Rs.7,64,780/- and the petitioner as well as 3rd and 4th respondents are liable jointly and severally and directed to pay the amount being the principal employer, contractor and insurer as per the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

2(iv) The order of the 1st respondent herein is totally perverse and not supported by any piece of evidence and the very finding that the pe