The nature of the work should be related to the employer's trade or business, and the principal employer is entitled to be indemnified by the contractor under Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923.

(Appeal under Sec.30 (1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (Act 8 of 1923) as stated therein.)

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Labour) for Workmen's Compensation, Tirunelveli dated 15.9.1995 in W.C.No.13/94.

2. The first respondent herein filed a Claim Petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Workmen's Compensation seeking compenstion of Rs.89,600/- from both the principal employer/the appellant herein and the contractor/the 2nd respondent herein. According to him, he was engaged by the contractor while carrying out the construction work relating to the appellant. On 1.9.1992, while he was carrying out work in the Trust, in connection with the work of digging a well, he was employed. While he was getting down steps into the well, the steps gave a slip. As a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injury. He was earning Rs.40/- per day and as a result of the accident, he had suffered disability at 80%. Based on this calculation, the claimant sought for compensation of Rs.89,600/-.

3. In the counter statement filed by the contractor, the manner of the injury sustained by the claimant was denied. The percentage of disability as claimed by the claimant was also denied. It was further stated that the claimant was not a regular employee and he was only a casual employee and his employment was only temporary in nature and not a workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

4. The appellant/the first respondent in the Claim Petition also filed a counter statement denying various contentions and stating that the employee was not in the course of business of the principal employer. As such, the appellant also disclaimed the liability to pay any compensation.

5. On considering the said contention and evidence, the Deputy Commissioner found that the claimant had suffered injury and sustained disability only in the course of the work, which was carried out at the instance of the contractor and the premises belonging to the principal employer/appellant herein. Hence the above appeal.

6. Learned cousnel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before this Court:

(i) The work which was being carried out was not in the course of the main trade and business of the appellant and the nature of the work which was entrusted to the constractor was only digging the well and the principal employer had not engaged the claimant in the business of digging the well and therefore, there is no liability on the principal employer.

(ii) Even otherwise, the claimant was employed only as a casual employee of the contractor and hence, there was no liability to pay any compensation to the casual employee.

(iii) Even assuming that the appellant is liable to pay any compensation, he may be entitled to be indemnified and reimbursed by the contractor and the Deputy Commissioner has not given any liberty to be reimbursed by the contractor.

7. Also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/first respondent herein.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/the first respondent herein contends that the definition of workman on which reliance was placed on by the Deputy Commissioner, Tirunelveli, is no more on the statute book and there is no inclusion of any casual employee in execution of work and there should be necessity of execution of work only relating to the main trade and business of the principal employer.

9. We have considered the submission of both sides.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the work should be of the same nature as of the principal employer's trade and business and the employee should not be a casual employee, is based on the definition of the word "Workman" as it existed prior to the amendment viz., Amending Act 46/2000. The definition of the workman as it was prior to the said amendment is as follows:

"Other than a person whose employment is of casual nature and who is employed oth