The principal employer is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of a worker employed through a contractor during the course of employment.

The Court made the following Judgment :

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the APCPDCL/ Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 under Section 30 of The Workmen Compensation Act, questioning the Order dated 12.08.2009 passed in W.C.No.8 of 2007 of the Authority under Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dharmavaram (for brevity “the Commissioner”).

The Appellants are the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4/ APCPDCL; Respondents No. 1 to 4 are the Applicants and Respondent No.5 is the Opposite Party No.1 before the Tribunal.

The Respondents 1 to 4 herein being the legal representatives of the Mr. G. Srinivasulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed under Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation due to death of the deceased during the course of his employment.

On 13.03.2006 at about 9.45 a.m, while in the course of his employment got up the electrical pole and checking and repairing the lines, in the meantime one line hit to the deceased. As a result, he fell down from the police on the road and died on the spot.

During enquiry, the Commissioner framed the following issues:

i) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of W.C.Act 1923?

ii) What was the age of the deceased?

iii) What was the wages paid to the deceased at the time of incident?

iv) Whether the applicants have received compensation as part payment or full and final settlement?

v) Whether the Applicants entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from which Opposite Party?

vi) To what relief?

On hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,31,362/- after deducting Rs. 50,000/-, total amount is Rs. 2,81,362/- to the Respondents No.1 to 4/ Applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the APCPDCL filed the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the ground that the Commissioner erred in awarding compensation amount against the Appellants even though there is no relationship of employer and employee and whether the interpretation placed by the Commissioner with regard to the provision os Section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is legally sustainable and among other grounds.

On perusal of the Award passed by the Commissioner, it can be observed that the Applicant No.1 being the wife of the deceased got examined herself as AW-1 and marked Ex.A1 to A8 through her. She categorically deposed as per her case that on 13.03.2006 at about 9.45, during the course of employment, the workman i.e deceased got up the electrical pole and checking, repairing the lines in the mean time, one line hit the deceased and he fell down from the pole on the road and died on the spot. One Mr. K. Samsri Reddy, under whom the deceased was working, got examined himself as Opposite Party No.1. During the course of examination he admitted othat he was a contractor under Appellants and further admitted that he has not filed any acquaintance registers with regard to pole to pole workers. In the absence of any contra evidence on the side of Opposite Party No.1 that the deceased was not a workman, the Tribunal relying upon the evidence of AW- 1, coupled with Ex.A1 to A7 answered the issue No.1 holding that the deceased was workman under the provisions of Workman’s Compensation Act.

It is the case of AW-1 that the deceased was getting an amount of Rs., 3,020/- per month as a salary. In the absence of any evidence to that extent, the Commissioner relying upon the decision of High Court of Karnataka reported in 1998(4) Kar LLJ-406, wherein it was held that where evidence was not adduced by either party with regard to monthly wages of the applicant workman, the Commissioner will have to fix the wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,654/- relying upon the Notification No. Q1/16227/200, dated 22.01.2005/Commissioner of Labour, A.P, Hyderabad U/R.12(1) r/w clause (b) of Sub-rule V of R.25 of Contra