IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.12498 of 2004 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12507 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION No.12498 of 2004 Between: M/s.B.Seenaiah & Company (Projects) Limited, Rep. by its Director P.S.Reddy. .... PETITIONER AND Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation And Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District, And others. ....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO. 17174 OF 2002. Between: M/s.B.Seenaiah & Company (Projects) Limited, Rep. by its Director P.S.Reddy. .... PETITIONER AND Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation And Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District, And others. ....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.12498 of 2004 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12507 OF 2004 C O M M O N O R D E R Since common questions of law and fact arise in these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order. The workmen (employees in the petitioner company) met with an accident and died in the premises of the petitioners, 1st respondent (Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation) having come to know about the same passed impugned orders under Section- 10(A) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’) directing the petitioners to deposit the amount mentioned therein before him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since Section 10(A) of the Act contemplates a notice being issued to the petitioners directing them to furnish a statement in the prescribed form and since no such notice is given to the petitioners, the orders impugned in these petitions are liable to be set aside and relied on M/s.B.SEENAIAH & COMPANY (PROJECTS) LIMITED V/s. THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, MAHABUBNAGAR (W.P.N0.1755 OF 2005) dated 26.04.2005 in support of his contention The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that since the accident occurred in the premises of the petitioners, they can be imputed with the knowledge of the accidents, and so, no further notice is necessary to the petitioners. He relied on Section-10 of the Act and contended that in view of the proviso (4) to Section-10(i) of the Act, no further notice is necessary to the petitioners. It is also his contention that since the petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the orders impugned in these petitions are passed under Section 10-A of the Act, the first respondent has to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 10-A of the Act. Had the orders impugned been under Section 10 of the Act, no notice would be necessary, but as the first respondent by exercising the power under Section 10-A of the Act passed the orders impugned, he has to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 10-A of the Act. The fact that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal is not a bar for petitioner approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the procedure contemplated is not followed by the Commissioner. Therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petitions are set aside and the cases are remitted to the first respondent to dispose of the cases after following the procedure prescribed in Section 10-A of the Act. No costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU 10th OCTOBER, 2007 PGS