- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1364 MFA No. 103401 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103401 OF 2023 (ECA) BETWEEN: 1. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, K-CHANDARGI-591114, TQ. RAMDURGA, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, RAMDURGA-591123, TQ. RAMDURGA, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. YALLAPPA S/O. GOUDAPPA KARIGOUDAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SIDDAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA KARIGOUDAR, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. MAHADEV S/O. YALLAPPA KARIGOUDAR, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O. M. CHANDARAGI VILLAGE, TQ. RAMDURGA, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GURURAJ R.TURAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.03.2023, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, RAMDURG IN E.C.A.NO.2/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1364 MFA No. 103401 of 2023 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the Employer-The Panchayat Development Officer/Secretary, Gram Panchayat, K-Chandargi village, Belagavi District (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employer’), questioning the order and award passed in ECA No.2/2019, dated 13.03.2023, by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Ramdurg (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Commissioner’), on the ground that the deceased was not an employee under the appellant-employer as on the date of the accident. Therefore, there was no jural relationship between the deceased and the respondents as employee and employer. Hence, claim petition is not maintainable. Thus, prays to set aside the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner. 2. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a waterman at M.Chandaragi Gram Panchayat under the employment of the appellants on contract basis. On 26.01.2018, as per the instructions of the appellants, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1364 MFA No. 103401 of 2023 deceased went to Murkatnal village of Ramdurg taluka to wash the over head tank. He completed his work. Thereafter, he was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/W- 3916. He rode the said vehicle in a moderate speed. At about 12.00 P.M., on the said day at M.Chadaragi-Murakatnal road within the limits of Gudagoppa village, the deceased met with a road traffic accident and died in the said accident. Therefore, the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. 3. Learned Commissioner holding that the jural relationship of employee and employer as appellant and deceased is proved and the death of the deceased is occurred out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.8,66,100/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till its realization. 4. The appellant has filed the appeal by raising ground that the deceased was working as a waterman on contract basis till the date of 25.01.2018 and the accident is taken on 26.01.2018. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the deceased was not an employee under the appellants. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1364 MFA No. 103401 of 2023 Therefore, awarding compensation by holding the deceased as employee of appellant is not correct. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner. 5. In the same line, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no jural relationship of employer and employee between the appellants and the deceased, as the contract of deceased was terminated on 25.01.2018, while the accident took place on 26.01.2018. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants justified the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner. 7. Before the learned Commissioner, the appellants being respondents though having received notice from the Court, did not appear and contested the case. Therefore, the appellants were placed ex-parte. Learned Commissioner upon accepting the evidence of the claimants noted that documentary evidence Exs.P-9 and P-10 are certificates issued by the PDO of appellant No.1 on 28.01.2018, which shows that the deceased was working as a waterman in the office of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1364 MFA No. 103401 of 2023 appellant No.1 from 30.12.2009 to 25.01.2018 for monthly wages of Rs.11,350/-. Therefore, upon accepting the said evidence, it was established that the deceased was working as waterman under the employment of appellants thus, holding that the jural relationship of employer and employee was established and accordingly, compensation was awarded. 8. From the aforementioned evidence Exs.P-9 and P- 10, along with testimony of the claimants, it is established that the deceased was working as a waterman in the office of appellant No.1. Therefore the appellants are employers. However, the counsel for the appellants has submitted that the contract for the waterman was completed on 25.01.2018 and from 26.01.2018, the services of waterman were not continued. Hence, as of the date of the accident, i.e., 26.01.2018, the deceased was no longer in service as a waterman and thus the jural relationship of employer and employee ended on 25.01.2018. Therefore, it is submitted that the claim petition is not maintainable. 9. Considering this submission, as per certificates at Exs.P-9 and P-10 issued by the PDO of appellant No.1, the certificates might have mentioned the period from 30.12.2009 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1364 MFA No. 103401 of 2023 to 25.01.2018. Technically, the services of the deceased might have ended on 25.01.2018, but since 26.01.2018 was a holiday due to the Republic Day festival, it was not possible for appellant No.1 to issue a continuation of service for the deceased as a waterman on that day. Unfortunately, the deceased died on 26.01.2018. While working as a waterman until 25.01.2018 as per certificates at Exs.P-9 and P-10 the work of the deceased was on contract basis then there would have been an artificial breakup in service on 26.01.2018. From 27.01.2018, the services of the deceased would have continued, but on 26.01.2018, the deceased died in the accident after completing the work of washing the overhead tank at Murkatnal village of Ramadurg Taluk. Under these circumstances, it was not possible to issue certificate of continuation of work for the deceased as a waterman. It cannot said that the deceased was not an employee of the appellants as a waterman. If the deceased had been alive, his services would have been continued afresh from the date of 27.01.2018 issuing certificates from that date. However, during this intervening period, an unfortunate event occurred i.e., death of deceased. The claimants have given evidence that the deceased was working as a waterman and was instructed by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1364 MFA No. 103401 of 2023 the appellants to clean the overhead tank at Murkatnal village and by the instruction of the appellants the deceased went to clean the overhead tank on 26.01.2018 which deemed continuation of service for the deceased as waterman by the appellants. When this being the fact proved that the deceased worked as waterman even on the date of 26.01.2018 therefore, the Tribunal correctly held that the jural relationship of employer and employee is established. Consequently, the determination of compensation by learned Commissioner is found to be perfect, justified and correct and legal. Therefore, the appeal is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 10. Trial Court Records shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. 11. Pending IAs’, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of dismissal of the appeal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP-Para 1 to 4 SRA-Para 5 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20