IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 13796 of 2001 Between: 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (now known as AP Transco) Anantapur. 2. Divisional Engineer, AP TRANSCOO, Gooty. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Chairman cum Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. 2. D.Ramesh, son of D.Rangappa, Near Milk Centre, Tadipartri. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and after calling for the records in ID No.232/99 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapur and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.VEERA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Now known as AP TRANSCO), Anantapur seeking to issue a Writ of certiorari after calling for the records in I.D.No.232/99 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapur and to quash the same. The 2nd respondent herein is the workman. He filed a claim statement before the Labour Court under Section 2 (A) (2) of the I.D. Act on the ground that he was employed as Village Electricity Worker from 1989 and while so, on 4-11-1992 while he was on duty, due to electrical shock, he received injury by way of burns to his left hand, which resulted in amputation of his elbow, for which purpose, he was in-patient in the Hospital and as soon as he recovered, he reported for duty, but the authorities have refused permission to do so. The contention of the Electricity Board in the said I.D. was that the workman was employed by the Grampanchayat and was attending as Village Electrical Worker and therefore, he was not employed by the Board and as such, there is no master and servant relationship at all. Hence, he is not entitled for any relief. Learned Labour Court after considering the appropriate issue and considering the evidence on record allowed the I.D. holding that the dispensation of service of the workman would amount to illegal termination and therefore, the Board shall reinstate the workman with continuity of service, but, without back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed by the Board. The specific case of the workman was that he was employed as Village Electrical Worker and posted to Konaguntapalli Village under Diguvapalli Panchayat, Tadipatri Taluk, Anantapur District by the order No.DEE/Gooty/ADM/D.No.2289/89, dated 17-10-89. Since the date of appointment, he was discharging his duties sincerely to the utmost satisfaction of the superiors. The Divisional Engineer, APSEB, Transco, Gooty (2nd petitioner herein) paid the salaries to the workman. On 4.11.1992 while he was attending to his duties, due to incorrect tackling of the lineman, he received electrical shock and due to burns, his left hand was amputated up to elbow in the hospital and for the treatment, he spent about Rs.35,000/-. After discharge from the Hospital, he approached the Divisional Engineer, APSEB, Transco, Gooty (2nd petitioner herein) for suitable employment, but the Divisional Engineer, APSEB, Transco, Gooty (2nd petitioner herein), made it clear that he is not suitable for the Village Electrical Worker Post and wrote a letter to the Superintendent Engineer, (O) Anantapur (1st petitioner herein) for the appointment of the workman for the post of Watchman or Attender. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (C) Tadipatri addressed a letter to the Divisional Engineer, APSEB, Transco, Gooty (2nd petitioner herein) to take the workman into service. The Superintendent Engineer directed the Divisional Engineer, APSEB, Transco, Gooty (2nd petitioner herein) in Memo No.PO/Admn/83/975/94 dated 10-5-1994 to settle the payment of salary for the duty period. But, the Divisional Engineer, APSEB, Transco, Gooty (2nd petitioner herein) failed to pay the due amount to the workman. Therefore, he filed W.C.No.85 of 1993 before the Commissioner for Workman Compensation, Anantapur. Aggrieved by the filing of the said petition for compensation, he was not given order of reinstatement from the date of discharge and was made to run from pillar to pole. Therefore, he filed the present I.D. Now, it is the contention of the petitioners-Board that the workman was not appointed by the Petitioners-Board but he was engaged by the Gram Panchayat. He is not the employee of the petitioners-Board and there is no master and servant relationship. Apart from that, the salary to the workman was being paid by the Grampanchayat and as such, the compensation has to be paid by the Grampanchayat as per the direction of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur in W.C.No.85 of 1993. The Tribunal below framed the following issues for consideration: 1) Whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement into service of the Petitoners-Board? 2) To what relief the workman is entitled? Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record and keeping in view of Section 11-A of the I.D. Act., the Tribunal below directed the petitioners-Board to reinstate the workman into service as Village Electricity Worker with continuity of service but without back wages. The sole ground that was taken by the petitioners-Board was that as the workman was not appointed by them and he was only engaged by the Grampanchayat, there is no master and servant relationship between the Electricity Board and the workman. But, the petitioners-Board failed to adduce any evidence to show that the workman was an employee of the Gram panchayat and that he is not their employee. In the absence of such material evidence and in view of the letter of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Tadipatri as well as the letter of the Superintending Engineer and in view of the undisputed fact that the workman became handicapped due to accident during the course of discharge of his duties, I have no hesitation to hold that the labour Court is justified in passing the order impugned herein. As such, the said order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Consequently, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 6th November, 2008. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13796 OF 2001 Dated 6th November, 2008