The court emphasized that the dispute regarding the right to indemnity under Section 12(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act should be decided by the Commissioner, and the provision disentitled the defendant-Government from succeeding on any plea based upon their right to indemnity, leaving them without any defense.

Rajamannar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He was a contractor under the Public Works Department and entered into a contract (Ex. D-18) on the 29th February, 1940, for doing some work on the Nidadavole-Chettipet Road. It is said that during the execution of this work a cooly named Subbadu slipped and fell into a canal and got drowned on the 9th April, 1940. This accident was reported to the Commissioner appointed under the Workmens Compensation Act, under Section 10-B of the said Act. The Commissioner issued a notice on the 6th May, 1940, to the Chief Engineer to the Government to submit a statement of particulars and also make the necessary deposit as provided under Section 10-A (2) of the Act. The Chief Engineer replied disclaiming liability to pay any compensation on the ground that the cooly accidentally fell into the canal and died on account of epileptic fits that he was suffering from. Subsequently, however, on further correspondence between him and the Commissioner, the Chief Engineer admitted liability in his letter dated 4th September, 1940, whereupon a compensation of Rs. 500 as fixed by the Commissioner was remitted to be paid over to the dependants of the deceased workman.

2. Admittedly moneys were due to the plaintiff for the work done by him under the contract and in paying his dues the Government deducted a sum of Rs. 500 being the amount which was paid as compensation to the dependants of the deceased workman and the balance after deduction was paid to the plaintiff on 11th November, 1940. Immediately the plaintiff sent a notice through his lawyer to the Government reiterating the protest which he had made even at the time of the receipt of the balance of the amount and categorically denying his liability to pay the sum of Rs. 500 as indemnity to the Government. No action appears to have been taken by the Government on this notice though in Ex. P-1 the proceedings of the Executive Engineer, Godavari West at Nidadayole, we find the following statement being made by the Executive Engineer It is also presumed that he will be getting a notice from the Commissioner to present his objection statement, if any, and that he can represent his case to the Commissioner, if necessary.

3. Evidently there was no proceeding before the Commissioner as was contemplated by Ex. P-1. The plaintiff then filed the present suit for recovering the sum of Rs. 500 still due to him in respect of the work done by him under the contract and for interest on that amount. The plea of the Government in the written statement was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction since the Commissioner had decided under the powers given to him by the statute the liability of the employer to pay compensation for the injury caused. In paragraph 5 it is stated The Commissioner of Workmens Compensation Act of 1923 held the deceased to be a workman within the meaning of the Act and that compensation is therefore payable under Section 12(2) of the.Act and that the defendant (Chief Engineer) is entitled to be indemnified by contractor (plaintiff).

4. In answer to a question from me the learned Government Pleader admitted that there was no order of the Commissioner holding that the Government is entitled to be indemnified by the contractor.

5. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that Section 19(2) of the Workmens Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) deprives the Civil Court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Section 19(2) is in these terms:

No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by a Commissioner or to enforce any liability incurred under this Act.

6. To understand the contentions of the parties in this case it is necessary also to refer to Section 12 of the Act which is in these terms:

(1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade o