IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:2345 of 2002 Between: Bandari Lingaiah, S/o.Rajaiah, R/o.Chennur (V) Chennur Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Limited Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad, 2 The General Manager, Srirampur Project, The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Bellampally, Adilabad District. 3 The Manager, Chennur 1 & 1 Incline, The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Chennur, Chennur Mandal, Adilabad District. 4 The Station House Officer, Chennur Police Station, Chennur, Chennur Mandal, Adilabad District. 5 The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Manchiryala Branch, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:MRS. V.UMA DEVI Counsel for Respondent No.4: NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent No.5: MR. M.VENKATARAMANA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the accidental death beneﬁts to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to release the accidental death beneﬁts forthwith and appoint the petitioner in any suitable post. Heard Sri S.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The father of the petitioner, by name, Rajaiah was employed as Coal Filler in respondent No.1 Company. While working in underground mine of 1 & 1A Incline, Chennur, on 12.10.2000, he died. FIR No.79 of 2000 was registered at Chennur Police Station and post mortem was conducted by the Deputy Civil Surgeon, Government Civil Hospital, Chennur. A ﬁnal report was submitted by the police after investigation and referred the complaint as accidental death due to insuﬃciency of oxygen. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 Company denied payment of compensation to him and his family members for the accidental death of his father. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2 - General Manager of Srirampur (Projects) Area of respondent No.1 Company, the death of the petitioner’s father in the course of discharge of his duties as Coal Filler in underground mine is admitted. It is, however, maintained in the counter-aﬃdavit that the cause of death is natural and not accidental. He relied upon the Gas Analysis Report of the place where the petitioner’s father died and pleaded that there was suﬃcient supply of air. As regards the claim for employment, it is averred that there is option available to the dependants of the deceased person to either claim employment or receive money of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of employment and that the petitioner and his mother gave consent to receive compensation in lieu of employment. It is further averred that a sum of Rs.3,43,032.85 has already been paid towards full and ﬁnal settlement of all the terminal benefits. Having regard to the rival pleadings, three points arise for consideration, namely, 1) whether the death of the petitioner’s father is accidental, 2) whether the petitioner is entitled to the beneﬁt of alternative employment, and 3) To what relief, the petitioner is entitled to? Point No.1: In support of his plea, the petitioner ﬁled a copy of ﬁnal report in Crime No.79 of 2000 ﬁled under Section 174 Cr.P.C. of Chennur Police Station. A perusal of the report shows that the Investigation Oﬃcer examined as many as eight witnesses as LWs.1 to 8, recorded their statements, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of L.Ws.9 and 10 and sent the dead body for post mortem. It further shows that L.W.11, the doctor, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued a report wherein he opined that the cause of death is “respiratory failure caused by anoxia and asphyxia”. The Investigation Oﬃcer ﬁled the said report before the II Class Executive Magistrate cum Mandal Revenue Officer, Chennur, and stated as under: “From the investigation done so far, it is clearly established that the deceased Bandari Rajaiah, S/o Posham, 43 years, R/o Asnad now at Chennur is a coal ﬁller in Chennur-1 incline of SCC Ltd, As usual on 12- 10-2000 he went to duty in ﬁrst shift and he entered into the mine along with other workers and while working in the said mine, at about 12 noon he could not suﬃcient oxygen in the underneath of the mine due to which ﬁrstly he became unconscious and the same was noticed by his co-workers. Immediately, they tried to brought up him from the mine, but in the meantime, he died. There is no foul play suspected behind his death. Therefore, the case is referred as accidental death due to insufficient of Oxygen.” The petitioner also ﬁled a copy of post mortem report of the Deputy Civil Surgeon, Government Civil Hospital, Chennur, Adilabad, wherein he gave the following opinion. “The approximate time of death at about 24 hours. Respiratory failure and by anoxia and asphyxia. Reserve pending report from the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Red Hills, Hyderabad.” Though in the counter-aﬃdavit, respondent No.2 has taken the stand, as noted above, that there was suﬃcient oxygen and, therefore, the death of the father of the petitioner was not accidental, no where in his counter- affidavit, he doubted the genuineness of the above-mentioned two documents ﬁled by the petitioner or the correctness of the opinion expressed by the doctor, on the basis of which, the Investigation Oﬃcer ﬁled ﬁnal report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the said two documents being conclusive proof of the cause of death of the deceased, denial by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as to the nature of death being accidental cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for respondent No.1, however, stated that the petitioner should have approached the competent authority under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) to claim compensation. The law is well settled that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar as it is only a rule of convenience rather than rule of law. (See Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.[1]) The petitioner had an option to approach the Workmen’s Compensation Tribunal as well. Ordinarily, in cases involving disputed questions of fact, this Court relegates the parties to such Tribunals. In this case, I do not find any such necessity because of non-denial of the authenticity of the documents produced by the petitioner and the contents thereof. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is rejected. From the discussion undertaken above, I ﬁnd point No.1 in favour of the petitioner. Point Nos.2 and 3: These two points shall be dealt with together as they are inter-related. At the hearing, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 placed before this Court a bunch of papers, which include the policy of respondent No.1 regarding payment of terminal beneﬁts. This policy shows that in case of death of an employee, the following amounts are payable: Benefits I n case of retirement D u e to natural case D u e to accident 3.Insurance Scheme Nil Rs.37,000/- Rs.37,000/- 4.JPAI Scheme Nil Nil Rs.1,00,000/- 5.Ex-Gratia Nil Nil Rs.25,000/- 6.Workmen’s Compensation Nil Nil As per Act The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that even if this Court ﬁnds that the death was accidental, the petitioner may be relegated to the authority under the Act for payment of compensation under item No.6 of the above mentioned document. I am not inclined to accept this request, because in view of the conclusive ﬁnding rendered on point No.1 supra, it is not necessary to again vex the petitioner with further litigation. When once it is found that the death was accidental, the Act, which is a self-contained Code, ﬁxed the rates of compensation. Respondent No.1 shall, therefore, ﬁx appropriate compensation on the basis of the rates prescribed under the Act. This indeed appears to be the policy of respondent No.1 in making a provision for payment of compensation as per the Act. Therefore, there is no further necessity of driving the petitioner to avail a separate remedy in this regard. With regard to the prayer for providing employment, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly admits that according to the policy of respondent No.1, one of the members of the deceased family is entitled to employment or receive compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of providing employment. She also placed before this Court a letter sent by the mother of the petitioner requesting respondent No.1 to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of providing employment. Since the petitioner’s mother herself made such a request, the petitioner is not entitled to employment, but the nominee of the deceased is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. In view of the above, the nominee of the deceased is entitled to receive the following benefits. 1) Amount for the accidental death as envisaged in items 3 to 5 mentioned supra; 2) Respondent No.1 shall calculate the compensation under item No.6 in accordance with the provisions of the Act within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pay the said sum along with the amounts covered by items 3 to 5 within the said time; 3) If any amount under any of the above items is already paid, the same shall be deducted from the amount payable to the nominee, and 4) Respondent No.1 shall also pay the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of employment, within the above-mentioned time. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.Nos.2766 of 2002 and 8154 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni [1] (2003) 2 SCC 107