IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH [24TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.323 of 2000 Between: The Managing Director, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad … Appellant And: Para Vijayalakshmi @ Varalakshmi & others … Respondents C.M.A.No.324 of 2000 Between: The Managing Director, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad … Appellant And: Jampu Koteswaramma & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.323 of 2000 and C.M.A.No.324 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: i) CMA No.323 of 2000: This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.11.1999 in W.C. Case No.599 of 1996 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ongole, wherein the claim of the applicants i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.42,267/-. ii) CMA No.324 of 2000: This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.11.1999 in W.C. Case No.598 of 1996 on the file of the Commissioner of Labour, Ongole, wherein the claim of the applicants i.e., respondents 1 to 4 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.35,901/-. 2. As both the matters arise out of the same accident and involved same question to be considered, they are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents. Perused the records. 3. According to the applicants, the deceased workmen were coolies engaged by one Peddi Srinivasa Rao (opposite party No.3 before the lower Tribunal) for levelling of internal roads and while they were so working on the land, there was an accident in the said land and the deceased workmen were intercepted in the mud and died. After enquiry, the learned Commissioner passed an award against the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 therein. Learned Commissioner has exonerated 5th respondent therein i.e., United India Insurance Company from any liability. 4. The finding of the learned Commissioner that the deceased workmen were engaged by 3rd respondent therein and that they died in the course of such employment is not challenged, as no appeals are filed either by the employer i.e., Peddi Srinivasa Rao or 5th respondent-National Insurance Company. The present appeals are filed by the appellant/Corporation contending that the learned Commissioner erred in fastening joint liability on them, though, admittedly, the appellant-corporation has not employed the deceased workmen. 5. It is not disputed that the appellant is only the owner of the land and the same was allotted for the purpose of carrying out levelling work to the contractor-Peddi Srinivasarao. Thus there is nothing on record to show that the appellant-corporation employed the deceased workmen. Simply because the appellant-corporation allotted portion of the land for the purpose of levelling and retained remaining portion of the land with them, they do not become employers in terms of the Workmen Compensation Act. It was only Peddi Srinivasarao who was entrusted with the work of levelling the said land and who has employed the deceased workmen and transported them on his lorry and while working in the course of such employment, at the behest of Peddi Srinivasarao, the deceased workmen died in the accident that occurred on the fateful day. There is absolutely no nexus established between the workmen and the appellant-corporation and the relationship of employer and employee between the appellant- corporation and the deceased workmen does not simply exist. Under those circumstances, fastening of any joint liability on the appellant- corporation to pay compensation is unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 6. In the result, both the civil miscellaneous appeals are allowed and the impugned orders dated 01.11.1999 in WC Case Nos.598 and 599 of 1996 are set-aside to the extent of fastening liability on the appellant-corporation. The rest of the award shall remain intact in both cases. 7. It is stated that the appellant has deposited the compensation amount while filing the appeal. If the amount is not withdrawn so far, the appellant is entitled for refund of the same. If the amount is already withdrawn by the applicants, it is open to the appellant-corporation to recover the said amount from respondents 3 and 5 (before the lower Tribunal) i.e., Peddi Srinivasa Rao and National Insurance Company. No order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 24.11.2009 bss