JUDGMENT :

These appeals are at the instance of the Zilla Panchayat, Belgaum calling in question the legality of award dated 25.02.2010 in KaPaKa:SR:43/2007 and in KaPaKa:SR:44/2007 passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Labour Officer, Sub-Division-II, Belagavi (for short “the Commissioner”).

2. Brief facts insofar as the same are relevant for deciding the present appeals are that two persons namely Irappa Taragar and Nagappa Harijan were working as labourers under the Contractor who was executing the project for the appellant and on 15.04.2005 at about 8.15 p.m. on account of explosion of some gelatin sticks stored in the shed, Irappa Taragar and Nagappa Harijan died in the spot itself. It is stated that the project under which the said two persons along with several others were working was for implementing Jal Nirmala Yojana.

3. On claim petitions being filed, the appellant who was respondent No.4 before the learned Commissioner entered appearance through learned counsel and also filed statement of objections and thereafter took no further part in the proceedings.

4. During trial, the claimants examined themselves as PW.1 and PW.2 and another witness who was a Co-worker with the deceased. Ex.P.1 to P.9 were marked. Respondents examined one witness and Ex.R.1 and R.2 were marked.

5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the material on record, the learned Commissioner allowed both claim petitions in part by awarding compensation of Rs.3,79,120/-for the death of Irappa Taragar and Rs.3,19,600/- for the death of the Nagappa Harijan with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 30 days from the date of the accident.

6. Learned counsel Sri Anand Ashtekar appearing for the appellants has advanced sole contention to the effect that learned Commissioner has committed a legal error in not passing a direction enabling the appellant to effect recovery of the compensation from respondent No.5-Renuka Constructions Co. Gokak, who was the contractor under whom the two deceased persons were working in the project. He took me through the provisions of Section 12 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) in order to substantiate his contention. He accordingly, submitted that the matter is required to be remanded to the learned Commissioner to enquire into the matter by examining the project agreement between appellant and respondent No.5-Contractor and pass suitable orders in that behalf.

7. I have heard learned counsel Sri M.C. Hukkeri for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri. Vittal S. Teli for respondent No.5-Contractor, who have supported the award passed by the learned Commissioner.

8. There is no dispute about the basic facts that deceased were working as employees under the contractor in execution of the Jala Nirmala project for the benefit of the appellant herein and on account of explosion of some gelatin sticks preserved in the shed in the project site on 15.04.2005 at about 8.15 pm two persons, whose dependants are the claimants, had died instantaneously.

9. The contention advanced before me in this appeal is that the deceased had died while being at the worksite of the Jala Nirmala project in which they were working for the benefit the appellant and the deceased workmen were directly employed by respondent No.5-contractor and therefore in terms of Section 12 of the Act, the appellant has a right to recover the compensation awarded from the contractor-respondent No.5 on establishing that there is such a provision in the project agreement between the appellant and respondent No.5. For a better understanding of legal position, an immediate reference to Section 12 of the Act may be made and it reads as follows;

“12. Contracting.-(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 th