IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST (1ST) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CMA No.273 of 2008 & Cross Objections No.22020 of 2008 Between: The Superintending of Engineer, APNPDCL, Gajulpet, Nizamabad & others … Appellants And: Smt. Alle Kamala & 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CMA No.273 of 2008 & Cross Objections No.22020 of 2008 ORDER: This appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the order dated 08.12.2006 in W.C. Case No.4 of 2005(F) on the ﬁle of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, wherein the said application ﬁled by the respondents 1 to 4 herein for compensation was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.2,84,358/-. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein ﬁled claim application alleging that the deceased Alle Murali, who was the husband of the ﬁrst applicant and father of the applicants 2 to 4, was the employee of the electricity department and that he died in the course of such employment as electrician attached to sub station, Dubba of Nizamabad. According to the applicants, on 06.07.2004 on the instructions of the Lineman, the deceased went to Subhash Nagar, near Z.P. Guest House, Nizamabad and climbed an electrical pole for eﬀecting repairs and died on account of electric shock. A case in Cr.No.130 of 2004 was registered by III Town PS, Nizamabad. It is stated that the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident. 4. The appellants herein ﬁled counter, opposing the claim on the ground that the deceased was not employed by the department in any capacity and is not a workman and therefore, not entitled for any compensation. 5. During the enquiry before the Tribunal, PW. 1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the applicants. RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the Department. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was an employee of the department and awarded compensation of Rs.2,84,358/-. Aggrieved by the same, the department ﬁled the present appeal. Not satisﬁed with the award, the applicants also ﬁled cross- objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. 6. Even in the counter ﬁled by the Department before the Tribunal, the appellants herein have denied that the deceased was employed by the department in any capacity. The applicants have not produced any order of appointment or salary certiﬁcate or any other document to show that the deceased was employed by the department. The applicants have not even stated as to when the deceased was appointed by the department and in what capacity. They have also not taken any steps to summon any record from the department to show that the deceased was in fact employed. The only piece of evidence sought to be relied upon by the applicants is Ex.A.2 inquest report, Ex.A.4 ﬁnal report, wherein, it is stated that the deceased accompanied the Lineman to the Z.P. Guest House and the deceased climbed the pole to eﬀect repairs and on account of electric shock, he died. Exs.A.2 and A.4 do not also disclose that the deceased was employed by the department in any capacity. What all they purport to state is that the deceased merely accompanied the lineman of the department. Even if the deceased has accompanied the lineman at the request of the line man and climbed the pole for eﬀecting any repairs, the same does not make him as an employee of the department in the absence of any order of appointment or engagement of the deceased by the department. If the deceased has obliged the lineman in climbing the pole for eﬀecting repairs, in his individual capacity, no liability can be fastened on the department treating the deceased as an employee of the department. The applicants therefore miserably failed to establish that the deceased was employed by the department and that he was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore, treating the deceased as an employee of the department on the basis of Exs.A.2, A.4 and A.5 is unsustainable, as the deceased was not proved to be employee of the department and therefore, he is not a workman within the meaning of the Act. The appellants can not be fastened with any liability for the payment of the compensation. The impugned award fastening the liability on the appellants is therefore unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. It is stated that in pursuance of the interim order dated 02.04.2008 in CMA MP No.1794 of 2007, the ﬁrst applicant-wife of the deceased was permitted to withdraw her share from the amount deposited by the appellants together with interest and costs and that she has withdrawn the said amount. Having regard to the fact that the ﬁrst applicant is a young widow, aged 26 years and the applicants 2 to 4 are minor children of the deceased and that they are stated to be poor, having no source of income or assets for their livelihood, it is considered that the amount already withdrawn by the ﬁrst applicant from out of the deposited amount, may not be recovered from the applicants and the appellant is entitled for refund of the balance amount lying in the deposit. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed accordingly. Cross objections ﬁled by the respondents 1 to 4 herein are dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 01.11.2011 bss