IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.1667 OF 2001 Date:26.11.2009. Between:- B.Chandraiah ..Appellant/Applicant And M.A.Hakeem and another .. Respondents/Opposite parties JUDGMENT:- Heard the learned counsel for appellant. None appeared for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.03.2001 passed in W.C.Case No.25 of 2000 on the file of the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Patancheru, Medak District (for brevity, “the Commissioner”) wherein the claim of the applicant-appellant for payment of compensation was dismissed on the ground that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the applicant and opposite party No.1. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned Commissioner has relied upon a statement of the opposite party No.1-M.A.Hakeem @ Khaleel, which is said to have been recorded by the Assistant Labour Officer, Zaheerabad, on 08.03.2001 wherein he denied the employer- employee relationship between him and the applicant. The impugned order further shows that inspite of repeated efforts to serve notices on opposite party No.1, the notices could not be served on him and, therefore, the learned Commissioner has directed the Assistant Labour Officer, Zaheerabad, to trace opposite party No.1 and record his statement. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, such a procedure followed by the learned Commissioner is unwarranted and the same does not have the sanction of Law. The learned Commissioner ought to have got the notices served through the very same Assistant Labour Officer on opposite party No.1 i.e., for appearance before the Commissioner, which is a Tribunal constituted under Workmen’s Compensation Act and ought to have recorded his evidence duly giving opportunity for cross examination to the applicant. The procedure adopted by the learned Commissioner in directing the Assistant Labour Officer to record the statement of opposite party No.1 in the presence of panch witnesses, and relying upon such a statement to hold that there was no relationship of employer and employee and thereby, reject the claim for compensation, is wholly untenable. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner, not based on any evidence adduced before him but on the basis of the statement of opposite party said to have been recorded by Assistant Labour Officer, Zaheerabad is, therefore, held unsustainable and same is accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, after getting the notices duly served on opposite Party No.1 and giving an opportunity to the applicant to adduce evidence and also to cross examine the opposite party, in case he chooses to appear and adduce evidence. Having regard to the fact that the claim is of the year 2001, the learned Commissioner is directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____​______________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 26th November, 2009 AMD