THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2018 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant is a civil contractor and was assigned the work of construction of a bridge on National Highway No.5 in Visakhapatnam District. The husband of the 1st respondent by name Lakshmanna was engaged as a worker in the project. In the night of 30.06.1999, Lakshmanna died due to snakebite. The 1st respondent filed W.C.Case No.4 of 2000 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’) claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband. It was pleaded that the deceased was aged 35 years and that he was being paid Rs.3,500/- per month. The appellant opposed the case by filing a counter. It was pleaded that Lakshmanna was employed by the sub-contractor and that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and themselves. It was further pleaded that there was no nigh shift work on 30.06.1999. Through order, dated 31.12.2003, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,48,591/- as compensation. The same is challenged in this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’). Heard Smt. V.Padmavathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. None appears for the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent and her husband had to go all the way from Mahabubnagar to Visakhapatnam in search of livelihood and they were employed with the 1st respondent in a construction work. Though it was pleaded that Lakshmanna was engaged by another person, the evidence on record clearly disclosed that the appellant is the immediate employer. The 1st respondent deposed as A.W.1 and she filed Exs.A.1 to A.5 comprising of F.I.R,, inquest report, post mortem examination report, letter issued by the Station House Officer, Kasimkota and a certificate issued by that police station. On behalf of the appellant, the Works Manager was examined as R.W.1 and muster book was filed as Ex.B.1. No serious defect is pointed out on the finding recorded by the Commissioner that there existed relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the appellant, and that the death occurred during the course of employment. Though it is urged that there did not exist any night shift on that day, it is too well known that whenever construction of bridges is undertaken, make shift residences are constructed to accommodate the workers and for all practical purposes, the workers are on duty through out. The Commissioner has taken into account the wages that are payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the age as mentioned in the record. Correct formula was applied and the compensation was awarded in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 01.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2018 of 2004 Date: 01.12.2011 JSU