THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.186 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2011 in W.C.No.23 of 2005 F on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad.

2. On 14.02.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. On 27.03.2025 also, there was no representation, the matter was posted under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. On 01.04.2025, in spite of matter being listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, none appeared, on 02.04.2025, though matter was listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, none appeared for the appellant. On 27.06.2025, this Court in the interest of justice passed the following order:

“In spite of matter being posted under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of appellant.

CMA is of the year 2014 and WC is of the year 2005. This Court is not inclined to dismiss the matter for non-prosecution.

This Court deems it appropriate to appoint Mr. Ch. Santhosh Reddy (Phone No.99661 18818)

(a young budding lawyer) as amicus curiae on behalf of appellant to assist the Court and make submissions.

Registry is directed to furnish a copy of entire set of documents to Mr. Ch. Santhosh Reddy (Phone No.99661 18818).”

3. Appellant-NPDCL herein is the Opposite Party and respondent(s) herein are the applicants before Commissioner.

4. Brief facts:

Learned amicus (Santhosh Reddy) for the appellant submitted that the deceased was a private Electrician, being paid an amount of Rs.150/- per day. That deceased climbed the 11KV Electric Pole located at Chinthalapalli Village of Jennaram Mandal to attend repair work and died due to electrical shock on the spot on pole. It is further submitted that department paid Rs.20,000/- as exgratia on 18.04.2005 to the wife of the deceased. It is also submitted that deceased was not a workman (under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’)). That lineman was not authorized to employ the deceased as a workman.

5. It is submitted that there was no employer – employee relationship between the deceased and the Corporation (i.e., NPDCL). It is further submitted that when there is no employer–employee relationship, NPDCL cannot be mulcted for the amount. It is also submitted that though work pertains to the department, lineman was not authorized or empowered to engage the deceased, that the department had no knowledge of the employment of deceased. That department is not liable to pay compensation.

6. On 17.04.2005, R. Ravi Kumar, Ch.Durgaiah, Assistant Linemen, and Md. Afeez, Junior Lineman, all regular employees of NPDCL, engaged one Venkata Chari (deceased) to attend electrical repair work on 11KV Electric Pole at Chinthalapalli Village (deceased was being paid Rs.150/- per day). A line clearance was obtained and deceased was instructed by the Assistant Linemen and the Junior Lineman to attend repair work. Deceased received electrical shock and died on the spot. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid as exgratia by the department to his wife. A case in Crime No.34 of 2005 under Section 304-A of IPC was registered against three linemen.

7. Applicants filed W.C.No.23 of 2005 F on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad, claiming an amount of Rs.4,05,560/- with interest at 12% per annum. Commissioner examined PWs.1 and 2, RW.1-V. Gururaj, Assistant Divisional Engineer on behalf of NPDCL (Operations) on behalf of Opposite Party, considered Exs.A1 to A5 on behalf of the applicants, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,05,561/- with interest at 12% per annum to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Commissioner in W.C.No.23 of 2005 is under challenge.

8. Heard Mr. Ch. Santhosh Reddy, amicus appointed by this Court on behalf of NPDCL, perused the record and consider