THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED A.A.O. No. 808 of 2005 J U D G M E N T: In this appeal, the Insurance Company questioned that portion of the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad in W.C.No. 39 of 2004 which made it liable along with the 2nd respondent to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,13,267/- to the 1st respondent, wife of Sri Pandu (henceforth referred to as ‘the deceased’), who died in an accident on 17.07.2004 at about 20.00 hours, while coming to Thirumalgiri Village on a tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 22A 8603/8604, after ploughing the land at Kallepalli Village on the ground that there is no employer and employee relationship between the 2nd respondent and the deceased. Admittedly, in this case, the death of the deceased and the quantum of compensation were not disputed. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that it cannot be presumed that there is a relationship of employer and employee between the 2nd respondent and the deceased because Ex.A1, certified copy of the First Information Report clearly shows that the deceased was the son of the 2nd respondent and both of them were residing together under the same roof, at the relevant point of time. He places reliance upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju v. National Insurance Company Limited[1], wherein it has been held that the deceased and the owner of the tractor being husband and the wife, the relationship of employer and employee between them did not arise and hence, the deceased was not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the 1923 Act’) and therefore, the question of husband being a workman under his wife appeared to be a far-fetched one. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, wife of the deceased, opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. She contends that under the 1923 Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, when two interpretations are possible, one, which is favourable to the employee, has to be taken into consideration. In this case, the 2nd respondent, father of the deceased employed his deceased son, inasmuch as he is an uneducated person and the said fact was corroborated by the 2nd respondent herein who was examined as A.W.2. According to her, the deceased and his father were not residing under one roof. The deceased was residing in Thirumalagiri Village, while his father was residing in Thirumalgiri Thanda. She further contended that under the Act, there is no prohibition to the effect that father should not employ his son/s under him and hence, she suggests that the order under appeal does not warrant any interference. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. The limited grievance of the appellant is that there is no employer and employee relationship between the 2nd respondent and the deceased and hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation. In the case relied upon by the appellant in Gottumukkal Appala Narasimha Raju’s case (cited supra), the case of the wife was that herself and her deceased husband were residing separately prior to his death. In those facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court held that if they have been living separately in view of certain disputes, the question of husband being a workman under her appears to be a far- fetched one, but here, in the instant case, A.W.2, the father of the deceased stated that he employed his son for Rs.3,500/- per month and as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no bar under the Act to say that the father should not employ his son. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not at all applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In that view of the matter, I am in complete agreement with the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent and hence, dismiss the appeal. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 19th August 2010 ksld THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1943 of 2004 17th June 2010 CVRK [1] (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 446