C.K. Thakker, CJ.—All these appeals arise out of cases No. 24 of 1993, 26 of 1993, 27 of 1993 and 28 of 1993 decided on 27th May, 1998 by the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation Act, HP SEB, Unit-II, Mandi, H.P.

2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeals, few facts, which are necessary may now be stated. A fatal accident was reported by the Executive Engineer, Baner Construction Sub Division No. II, HP SEB, Jia Tehsil Palampur. It was reported that at the said accident, which took place on 18th August, 1993 at about 3.10 p.m., six persons, namely, S/Shri Kunjumon, Hari Bahadur, Ram Kumar, Vir Bahadur, Kamal and Roop Lama lost their lives on the spot. They were engaged by M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (appellant herein). A notice under Section 23 of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation on the employer asking it to submit documents, as required and the case was fixed at various places on different dates.

3. The case on behalf of the workmen was that the workmen, who met with fatal accident were engaged by M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries, who had entered into an agreement with HPSEB (principal employer) to execute Civil Components of Baner Hydel Project. The appellant was to construct feeder tunnel, Desilting tank, Bye Pass tunnel, approach tunnel, flushing gallery, etc. On 18th August, 1993, after completing the drilling in sub-gallery No. 2 of flushing gallery at about 1.30 p.m., one Kundan Lal, Foreman Civil of M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. arranged the explosives from the portable Magazine at Project site as per requirement and handed it over to Shri Kunjumon, P.R.W. who along with the drillers and helpers were blown into pieces at about 3.10 p.m. while preparing primer for blasting. All the six workers who were present were killed on the spot and none was left there to eye witness the unfortunate incident. An FIR was registered with the police station, Palampur by the Company officials regarding the incident and post mortem of the deceased was conducted on the next date i.e. 19th August, 1993. Proceedings were initiated under the Act. On the basis of the materials on record, issues were framed, statements of the officers concerned of the Company as well as HP SEB were recorded. It was established that the workers lost their lives because of blasting and, hence, they were entitled to compensation under the Act. The only question, which was contested by the appellant-Company before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation was as to who was liable to pay compensation to the workmen, the appellant-company, which had taken the contract from the HP SEB, or HP SEB, the principal employer.

4. The case of the appellant-Company was that since the Company had undertaken to carry out the work as contractor, the liability to pay compensation to workmen under the Act was of the principal employer i.e. HP SEB and not of the appellant-Company, which was a contractor. On the other hand, the contention of the HP SEB was that since there was a contract between HP SEB, principal employer and the appellant-Company, contractor under which the entire work was to be done by the appellant-Company, it was the appellant-Company, which was liable under the Act. The appellant-Company, therefore, cannot contend that the principal employer was liable to pay compensation to the workmen.

5. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation by the orders, impugned in the present appeals, considered the relevant clauses of the agreement executed on 13th December, 1990 and held that as per the agreement, the explosive materials was to be obtained by the Company as also it was the duty of the Company to take precautionary measures of the explosives. It was the sole responsibility of the Company to make safety arrangements for labourers and to pay compensation to the workers, who were engaged by it for executing the work and H