( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal are enumerated below.

( 2 ) THE parties shall be hereinafter referred to as applicant and respondents as they are referred in the order of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, hyderabad.

( 3 ) THE applicant filed an application that her son K. Ravi who had been employed by respondent No. 2, K. Gopal, died on 23. 12. 1987 during the course of employment. The deceased Ravi had received injuries when he fell down from height of 40 ft. as he was whitewashing the Osmania university Science College walls. He was taken to hospital where he died. He was aged 20 years. His mother sought compensation of Rs. 53,760 and also sought penalty and interest. Respondent No. 1, osmania University was represented before the Commissioner and it took the plea that the University had executed an agreement on 19. 12. 1987 with respondent No. 2, K. Gopal, for execution of the work of whitewashing to all exterior faces of the walls of the University. They took the plea that it was respondent No. 2 who was liable to pay the compensation. The respondent no. 2 took a plea that the deceased Ravi was not a worker in terms of Workmen s compensation Act and he had received the work order from the respondent No. 1 on 16. 12. 1987 and even prior to that date the deceased had undertaken the work only under the direct instructions of the University. The Commissioner ordered that the university and the contractor were jointly nd severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 53,760. This order was challenged in an appeal which was decided by a learned single Judge of this court by a judgment dated 8. 11. 1991. The learned single Judge reversed the order passed the commissioner. Hence this appeal by the applicant.

( 4 ) BEFORE the case is considered on merits, it is noteworthy to mention here hat a poor man aged 20 years while whitewashing the walls of the University died in the year 1987, 13. years have passed and the matter is still pending in the courts and the compensation sought and allowed is a meagre amount of Rs. 53,760. Two points which the learned single Judge framed for consideration were that: (1) Whether the deceased Ravi was employed by the respondent No. 2 or the appellant University? (Appeal was filed by the University ). (2) If the deceased was employed by respondent No. 2, whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation payable under the Act?

( 5 ) ON question No. 1 the learned single judge found that under section 30 (1) (a) of the Workmen s Compensation, Act (for short the Act ) no appeal would lie against the order of the Commissioner unless substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The Commissioner had found that the deceased was employed by the respondent no. 2, which was a question of fact, therefore, the learned single Judge could not interfere in this question. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the deceased had been employed by respondent No. 1.

( 6 ) ON point No. 2 the learned single judge considered the import of the section 12 of the Act and came to the conclusion that whitewashing/colour washing was not a regular feature of the activity of the university and it could not be treated ordinarily as part of the business of the University, therefore he allowed the contentions of the University and set aside the findings of the Commissioner. The result was that the learned single Judge held that the university was not at all liable to pay the compensation.

( 7 ) NOW in the facts and circumstances of the case, the only question before this court is whether the University was liable to pay the compensation or not. Section 12 of the Act lays down:"12. (1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contracto