Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010188122025 2026:GAU-AS:6867 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/356/2025 HAFSA BEGUM MAZUMDER AND ANR W/O LATE BADRUL HAQUE MAZUMDER, R/O VILL- CHANDRAPUR PT-I, P.O. AND P.S.-LALA, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 2: SAMIR HUSSAIN MAZUMDER S/O LATE BADRUL HAQUE MAZUMDER R/O VILL- CHANDRAPUR PT-I P.O. AND P.S.-LALA DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSA VERSUS THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, APDCL AND 7 ORS BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781001 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781001 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER APDCL CACHAR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE MEHERPUR SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788015 Page No.# 2/7 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER BARAK VALLEY ZONE APDCL MEHERPUR SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788015 5:THE SENIOR MANAGER HAILAKANDI ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL HAILAKANDI PIN-788151 6:THE DEPUTY MANAGER HAILAKANDI ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL HAILAKANDI PIN-788151 7:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER LALA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL LALA HAILAKANDI PIN-788163 8:JALAL UDDIN LASKAR LINEMAN APDCL REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER APDCL LALA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION HAILAKANDI PIN-78816 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HAQUE, MR M HUSSAIN,MR. A K AZAD,MR. S R BARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, Page No.# 3/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 18.05.2026 Heard Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R. Bora, learned standing counsel for the APDCL representing all the respondents. 2. Aggrieved by dismissal of the Execution Petition by order dated 19.06.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi in T. Ex. No. 04/2024, the present application has been filed under 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner is the wife of Badrul Haque Mazumdar (since deceased). In the plaint of T.S. No. 05/2014, it was projected that the husband of the petitioner was a workman under a skilled category who died due to electrocution while working as Muster Roll Casual Worker under Lala Electric Sub-Division. At the time of his death, he was stated to be working under the lineman at Vernerpur (Nuniakhal) to repair a fault in the electrical line. He was stated to have been electrocuted and died on the spot. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) as compensation to be paid within 3 (three) months from the date of passing of the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2016, passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge, Hailakandi and it was ordered that on failure the amount would carry interest @ 6 % per annum till realization. The petitioner had preferred an appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No. 11/2022 and the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi by judgment and decree dated 09.10.2023, allowed the appeal and applying the ratio of Sarala Verma & Page No.# 4/7 others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, taking into consideration the daily wage of Rs. 291/- that was the wages for a skilled worker on a daily basis, monthly wages were calculated at Rs.8370/- (Rupees Eight thousand three hundred seventy only) and accordingly, under the principles of case of Sarala Verma (supra), the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs.13,39,500/- (Rupees Thirteen lakh thirty nine thousand five hundred only) with interest payable @ 6% per annum w.e.f from 05.05.2013 till realization. 4. The decretal amount ordered by the learned First Appellate Court was not paid and accordingly, the petitioner filed an execution petition before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi, which was registered as T. Ex. No. 04/2024. On the ground that the case of the plaintiff was death occurred while working as a workman in the course of employment, it was held that the plaintiff could have approached the Commissioner under the Workman’s Compensation Act or before the State Administrative Tribunal or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it was held that the suit for compensation was barred under Section 9 of the CPC read with Section 19(2) of the Workman’s Compensation Act and accordingly, by holding that agreement between the parties to pursue the suit was sustainable in view of Section 28 of the Contract Act, which would not confer jurisdiction on the Court, the said execution petition was dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent made his submission in support of the impugned order and opposing this application. 6. From the contents of the written statement filed by the respondents Page No.# 5/7 in the suit, the respondents have denied any contractual relationship between the APDCL and the deceased, whereas the case of the petitioner is that her was working as a workman under skilled category under the APDCL. Therefore, the Court does not find any admission on part of the respondents that the deceased was their workman. Under such circumstances the finding by the learned Executing Court that the petitioner ought to have approached the Commissioner, Workman’s Compensation, is not found sustainable. Similarly, the State Administrative Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to pass any order of compensation for the death of a person claimed to be working under the APDCL which a Govt. company. Similarly, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not adjudicate the issue of compensation on original side. At best, this Court may award compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only as a palliative soccur, but not on substantial adjudication and therefore, when a palliative compensation is paid, the parties are usually relegated to the Civil Court. 7. The provisions of Sub-Section 5 of Section 3 and Section 19 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 are quoted below: “5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a 2 [employee] in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a 2 [employee] in any Court of law in respect of any injury— (a) if he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or (b) if an agreement has been come to between the 1 [employee] and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Page No.# 6/7 19. Reference to Commissioners.—(1) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation (including any question as to whether a person injured is or is not a 6 [employee]) or as to the amount or duration of compensation (including any question as to the nature or extent of disablement), the question shall, in default of agreement, be settled by 7 [a Commissioner]. (2) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be ‘settled, decided or dealt with by a Commissioner or to enforce any liability incurred under this Act.” 8. The provisions of Sub-Section 5 of Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 would not bar the jurisdiction of a Civil Court for damages as indicated above. In this case the projected employer i.e., the APDCL had not admitted that the deceased was their workman, and it cannot be said that the ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court by applying provision of Section 19 (2) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. 9. In view of the above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 19.06.2025, thereby dismissing the proceedings of T. Ex. Case No. 04/2024 is not sustainable on facts and in law. When neither of the parties had raised the issue regarding nullity of the decree, the learned Court could not have declared so law. 10. Accordingly, the said order dated 19.06.2025 is hereby set aside and quashed. 11. Resultantly, the proceedings of T. Ex. Case No. 04/2024 is restored to the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi. 12. As the petitioners and the respondent are represented, both sides are directed to appear before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Page No.# 7/7 Division), Hailakandi on 08.06.2026, and by producing a certified copy of this order, await for any order that may be passed by the said learned Court. 13. We request the learned standing counsel for the APDCL to transmit a downloaded copy of this order and send it to the respondent authority. For the ends of justice the petitioner is also directed to produce a certified copy of the order before the Office of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Lala Electrical Sub- Division to bring the order to the notice of the said authority. 14. The application stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 15. There shall be no order as to cost. 16. Before parting with the records, it is deemed appropriate that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi be request to transmit a photocopy of this order to the concerned officer, who had passed the impugned order dated 19.06.2025. JUDGE Comparing Assistant