IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.80 of 2007 DATE:24.11.2010 Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By O/o.District Panchayat Office, Adilabad and another …… Appellants And Singam Padma and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.80 of 2007 JUDGMENT: State of Andhra Pradesh and the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nirmal filed this appeal questioning order dated 14.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad in W.C. Case No.1 of 2004. The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.1,93,421/- to the claimants 1 to 4 who are wife and minor children of the deceased Singam Chandra Goud who died of electrocution which occurred on 09.12.2002 at 4.00 P.M when he was starting electric pump relating to water pumping scheme of Rapally grampanchayat of Mancherial Mandal of Adilabad District. As per Ex.A-4 copy of service certificate of the deceased issued by the surpanch of Gram Panchayat, the deceased was employed as helper in the Gram Panchayat. P.W-2 also speaks to the said particulars of work being done by the deceased in Gram Panchayat during that time. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning wages of Rs.2,000/- per month as helper and was earning Rs.100/- per day as toddy topper during his leisure hours. The Commissioner determined the compensation amount on the basis of monthly wages of Rs.1,860/- and age of the deceased as 30 years. With regard to compensation amount, there is no dispute. The claimants did not file any appeal against the impugned order fixing the compensation. 2) The claim case was filed before the Commissioner against six opposite parties. They include the appellants 1 and 2 herein, Village Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and three officers of A.P.Transco, Manchirial. The Commissioner awarded compensation only as against the appellants 1 and 2 and the village Secretary of Gram Panchayat and rejected the claim as against officers of A.P.Transco. The Gram Panchayat Secretary did not file any appeal against order of the Commissioner. 3) It is contended for the appellants that the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, the Act) and that in any event, no order for payment of compensation can be passed by the Commissioner against the appellants is untenable as the deceased was not employed by the appellants. Even if Ex.A-4 copy of service certificate of the deceased and evidence of P.W- 2 are accepted, the deceased was only a Gram Panchayat worker and not a Government servant working under any of the appellants 1 and 2. At best, there may be employer and employee relationship between the Gram Panchayat and the deceased and not with the State of Andhra Pradesh or the District Panchayat Officer or the Divisional Panchayat Officer. It is contended by the respondents’ counsel that Panchayat Secretary who is the 3rd opposite party is a subordinate of the appellants 1 and 2. The respondents’ counsel placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Company Limited V. N.Sarojini[1] of this Court in this regard. But, there is no indication therein as to whether a Gram Panchayat worker becomes a worker under the State of Andhra Pradesh or under the District Panchayat Officer or the Divisional Panchayat Officer. It was a case relating to employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the A.P.Transco. Neither the Government nor the State comes into the picture in the fact situation relating to the said reported decision. 4) Gram Panchayat is a local self-government by itself. It has got constitutional status as per Seventy-third amendment to the Constitution of India. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, a Panchayat worker cannot be a workman under the State of Andhra Pradesh or officers working in the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Any claim relating workmen working in any local self-government like Panchayats or Municipality or Municipal Corporation can only lie against the respective local bodies and not against the Government of Andhra Pradesh or State of Andhra Pradesh or its officers. 5) It is further contended for the appellants that award of interest from the date of death of the deceased, is not sustainable in law as Section 4(A) of the Act makes it incumbent on the employer to pay compensation in one month of it falling due and that unless there is determination, the question of amount falling in due does not arise. The Government Pleader placed reliance on National Insurance Company Limited V. Mubasir Ahmed[2] and Kamla Chaturvedi V. National Insurance Company Limited[3] of the Supreme Court on this aspect. Since this Court held that the appellants 1 and 2 are not liable to pay compensation in this case as there is no relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the appellants, the said point becomes purely academic in nature. 6) In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside order of the Commissioner in so far as the appellants 1 and 2 are concerned. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 24, 2010 ksh [1] 2009(5)ALD 300 [2] (2007)2 Supreme Court Cases 349 [3] 2008 (TLS) 47546