The principal employer is liable to pay compensation to the workmen employed by the contractor in the execution of work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal employer.

1. When the above C.M.Ps came up for hearing, by consent of learned counsel on both sides, the appeal itself was heard for final disposal.

2. Second respondent, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, is the appellant before this Court.

3. Applicants before the Labour Court are claiming under one Kumar, who was a workman employed by one Pushparaj, 3rd respondent before this court. It is their case that he died on 29. 1988 in an accident which arose in the course of employment. It is said that on that date, second respondent/appellant engaged deceased Kumar through the contractor Pushparaj for the purpose of doing boiler work under the direct control of the appellant, and while the deceased was working in electrical drilling work within the premises of the appellant, due to negligent and improper arrangement of the electrical drilling machine, it broke and Kumar died on the spot as a result of electrocution. The accident took place in the course of employment and therefore, they claim compensation for his death.

4. In the counter statement of the appellant, it said that it did not employ deceased Kumar at any time, and there was no employer and employee relationship between them. It is said that Kumar was employed by 1st respondent (before the Deputy Commissioner). It is said that the work entrusted only with a contractor and the appellant has nothing to do with the work thereafter, and they had no say either in the technical or other detailed work. It was further contended that the accident did not happen in the course of employment, Quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed.

5. In the counter of 1st respondent Pushparaj, he also said that the deceased Kumar was not a workman. He said that he was only a casual labourer and that he was employed to assist, only on the previous day of the accident. It was also contended that the claim is excessive. It is further said that the deceased was only a boiler attender in pr of ession, and he was a ceylon refugee. He was not a technician qualified to handle electrical equipments especially, drilling machine or boiler installation work. He disputed his liability to compensate the claimants.

6. By the impugned order, the Authority held that Kumar was employed by the Contractor for the purpose of the appellant, and all of them are liable to compensate the claimants. An amount of Rs.90,552 was awarded.

7. The Authority under the Act took evidence regarding the same, and after consideration of all the materials, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a workman as defined under the Workmens Compensation Act, and that he died in the course of employment. It further found that the dependants, the claimants before the Authority, are entitled to compensation.

8. It further found that the appellant had engaged the deceased through the contractor and, therefore, it is also liable to compensate for the death of the deceased.

9. The order is challenged in this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was not an employee of the appellant, and there is no employer and employee relationship between them. It is, therefore, contended that the direction given by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmens compensation making the appellant also liable for paying the compensation amount, cannot be sustained. Another contention was also raised, that the deceased was only a casual labourer under the 1st respondent before the commissioner, and the compensation awarded is far in excess of the amount claimed by the claimants.

11. I do not think, any of these arguments can be sustained. The finding of the Commissioner for workmen that the contractor was engaged by the appellant for doing certain works is not disputed. In fact, there is a finding by the Commissioner himself in that regard. The contractor, who is the first respondent in the claim petition also admits that to do certain works under the contract, deceased was also engaged