The Workmen's Compensation Act is a self-contained code, and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has the authority to decide inter-se disputes between the contractor and the principal employer.

1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent/Deputy Labour Welfare Commissioner dated 4.12.2008.

2.1. The first respondent was informed that one M.Vinod, S/o.Mohan, aged 22 years, working as Painter died on 23.10.2008 at the Government General Hospital due to the collapse of pandal on account of heavy rains and he was engaged under the supervision of the Executive Engineer, CCD II. On receiving the information, the first respondent visited the spot and confirmed and verified from the Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer. Therefore, it was found that the death attracted the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 and the compensation payable to the legal representatives of Late Vinod works out to Rs.4,42,740/- based upon the calculation made under Section 4 of the Workmens Compensation Act.

2.2. The first respondent held that the work was being carried out under three work orders/agreements and two agencies were involved, one of the agency was the petitioner and the other work is done by one G.Venkatesan. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to share the amount equally along with G.Venkatesan, which amount was to be deposited with the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-cum-Workmens Compensation Commissioner. The first respondent also ordered that in case the petitioner did not pay his 50% of the liability, then any amount payable through bills to be cleared may be forestalled.

3. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the said order on the ground that he was not at all a contractor and the question of his paying 50% of the amount of compensation payable to Late Vinod will not arise and the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass such an order.

4. It must be noted that the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 is a self-contained code and under Section 12 read with Rule 39, the Workmens Compensation Commissioner can decide not only the compensation payable to a deceased or an injured workman, but also the inter-se dispute between the contractor and the principal employer. In case the principal employer pays the amount, he can always get it indemnified by the contractor. Therefore, the actual dispute will have to be raised before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner.

5. However, when a similar action arose, this Court in T.R.Subramanian v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, [2008] 2 MLJ 694 held that such a dispute cannot be countenanced by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner and in paragraphs [10] and [11], it was observed as follows:

"10. Therefore, on the strength of this, the learned counsel states that it is not enough if the Commissioner should pass an order of indemnity but also he must use the machinery vested on him by the Workmens Compensation Act and recover the amounts from the contractors. I am unable to agree with the said submission. The recovery machinery provided in the W.C.Act is essentially for the workmen to seek compensation either against the immediate employer or against the principal employer. Once the compensation amount is due, the obligation to recover the same by taking distraint proceedings (i.e. by the issuance of revenue recovery certificate) may also fall on the Commissioner. But that does not take his role to any illogical conclusions.

11. The dispute between the contractor and the principal employer cannot be solved by the Commissioner and the recovery machinery cant be used in case of indemnity and the amounts from the contractors realised to be paid to the principal employer. In fact, the Section only talks about indemnifying the payment made by the principal employer by the contractors. Rule 39 nowhere provides that the recovery machinery is to be put at the disposal of the principal employer as against the contractor. At the maximum, the Commissioner can only pass orders fixing the liability to take with that further right of the principal employer to get indemnity from the con