JUDGMENT

 The question raised in the present appeal is that the employees of the contractor engaged by the respondent-Company to execute certain contract are covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and whether contribution in respect of them is payable although the contract was completed much prior to the demand for such contribution made by the appellant-Corporation.

2. Both the Insurance Court and the High Court have held against the Corporation on the ground that workers in respect of which the contribution is demanded were casual employees of the contractor and since the contract was over long ago, they are not identifiable.

3. We are afraid that the ground given by both the Courts is not justifiable. Under the Act, it was the duty of the respondent-Company to get the necessary details of the workmen employed by the contractor at the commencement of the contract since the primary responsibility of payment of the contribution is on the principal employer. On the admitted fact that the respondent-Company had engaged the contractor to execute the work, it was also the duty of the respondent-Company to get the temporary identity certifi