The central legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of a principal employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, particularly under Section 12, is contingent upon the work being part of the trade or business of the principal.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31. 10. 2003 of the Commissioner, workmen s Compensation in WCD/162/96 whereby the Commissioner had held the appellant herein to be principal employer and thereby foisted a joint liability upon him to discharge the award.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case as noted by the commissioner, Workmen s Compensation are as follows:-

". . . . . THAT lat Sh. Raju son of Sh. Nathua was employed as Baledar with the respondent no. 1 for the completion of work of respondent no. 2. The deceased was drawing wages @ rs. 1800/- per month and he was 30, years of age at the time of his death i. e. 20-7-96. On 20-7-96 the deceased sh. Raju was on his duty at the work place i. e. E-115, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He was working as Baledar in the construction work and the said premises was owned by Respondent No. 2. While working Sh. Raju Died due to accident by slipping from the pad at the time of white-washing etc. at premises E-115, ashok Vihar, Delhi. It has been also stated that the respondents have admitted the factum of accident in their deed of Settlement dated 9-12-96 filed in this Hon ble Court. Notice U/s 10 of the Workmen s Compensation Act was not served on the respondents due to the reason that the respondents were having the notice of accident since the day of its occurrence. The applicants/ petitioners are entitled to compensation as per W. C. Act from the respondents- respondent No. 1 being contractor of the work, respondent no. 2 being owner of the premises. They are also entitled to received penalty @ 50% and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization. At the time of filing of the claim petition Sh. Bhagwan dass Singhal was made a party as respondent no. 2 and thereafter during the course of proceedings on the application filed by the applicant/claimant under order 1 Rule 10 r/w section 151 cpc Sh. Ajay Singhal son of Sh. Bhagwan dass Singhal was impleaded as respondent no. 2 in the array of respondents being the real owner of the premises in question. "

( 3 ) NOTICES were served to the respondents and respondent No. 1 in his reply has stated that he was not employer of the deceased. Respondent no. 1 along with other labourers namely Bhanwar Singh, Puran Lal as well as the deceased Raju under took to do the installation work of stones in the premises of respondent no. 2 and he was simply the co-worker with the deceased and he along with other co-workers remained under contractual employment of respondent no. 2. It was the respondent no. 2 who was responsible for making the payment towards the work done by them and it was the responsibility of the respondent no. 2 to ensure the safety measures for the respondent no. 1 including his co-workers. He has also stated that the premises in which the accident took place is belonging to respondent no. 2 and on the date of accident I. e. 20-7-96 he was out of delhi and had gone to Hindon, Rajasthan. He has further stated that the claim application has not been filed in accordance with the statutory provisions as contained in the workmen s Compensation Act. No notice as required under the Act has been served upon the respondent no. 1 and the application is also barred by the period of limitation. Respondent no. 1 along with his co-workers including the deceased Raju was used to get rs. 60/- per day for the installation work. The deceased Raju ws inhabitant of Rajasthan and a place near to the native place of respondent no. 1 and he brought him for the work in respect to premises owned by respondent no. 2 and further under the employment of the respondent no. 2.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT no. 2 in his reply has stated that the claim for compensation made against the respondent no. 2 after more than 2 years from the date of death of the deceased Shri raju I. e. 20-7-1996, is barred by the provisions of section 10 (1) of the Act. The deceased had never been employed as Baledar by respondent no. 2. Petitioners were not related