THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.4346 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 27.06.2002, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C. Case No.5 of 1999. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed W.C. Case claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Sri Basaveswara Rao, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4. It was pleaded that Basaveswara Rao was employed as an electrician on N.M.R. basis with the appellant and that on 18.07.1998, when he was attending to a repair of bulb on an electrical pole, he was electrocuted and died after falling from the pole. He was said to be 44 years at the time of his death. The claim was opposed by the appellant. He pleaded that the deceased was not employed with him and that he is not under obligation to pay any compensation. It was also stated that the liability if at all to pay compensation is with the Electricity Board. The Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,024/- as compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. The principal ground on which the order passed by the Commissioner is challenged is that there did not exist any relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and the deceased. On behalf of the appellant, initially a counter and thereafter, additional counter were filed before the Commissioner. It was clearly admitted that the deceased was working as electrician on N.M.R. basis. The definition of ‘workman’ under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’) takes in its fold, not only the regularly employed persons but also those who are engaged on temporary or ad hoc basis. N.M.R. employee is paid a definite amount of salary and the employment is not for any particular period. Further, the appellant himself pleaded that the son of the deceased was provided employment on compassionate grounds. That facility would be extended only to the employees with certain standing. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the deceased was not his employee and that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the case, cannot be accepted. The Commissioner applied the correct parameters pertaining to age and wages, and the compensation was awarded. No serious flaw is pointed out in the calculation. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 28.12.2011. kdl