The recovery machinery provided in the W.C. Act is for workmen to seek compensation, and the Commissioner's role does not extend to recovering amounts from contractors for indemnity.

The prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the order dated 14.11.2006 and consequently direct the respondent to dispose of the petitioners application filed under Section 12(2) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘W.C. Act‘) in accordance with law.

2. By the impugned order dated 14.11.2006, the respondent Commissioner for Workmens Compensation informed the petitioner that on account of the accidental injury to one Madhavan on 2.6.2001, he filed Workmens Compensation Claim being W.C. No. 465 of 2001 and that a sum of Rs.1,88,980/- was ordered by an order dated 10.6.2003 towards compensation as well as interest and the same was deposited by the petitioner and it has also been given to the said injured Madhavan by the office of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation. It was also informed that by the order in W.C. No. 465 of 2001 that the petitioner, being the principal employer, was permitted to recover the amount from the respondents 2 and 3 in the W.C. Case and when those immediate employers failed to pay the amount, the petitioners were directed to approach the appropriate Civil Court and claim it by way of money suit.

3. I have heard Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. V. Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader representing the official respondent and have perused the records.

4. The only question that arises for consideration in the writ petition is that by virtue of the provisions of the W.C. Act if the Commissioner for Workmans Compensation (respondent) that in case a liability is fastened on the principal employer and if the principal employer satisfies the compensation ordered, whether there is any further obligation on the authority to recover the amounts from the contractors in terms of Section 12(2) of the W.C. Act. The petitioner, after disposal of W.C. No. 465 of 2001 filed an application purporting to be under Section 12(2) of the W.C. Act before the Commissioner and requested him to recover the award amount from the respondents 2 and 3 in the W.C. case. It was to this request, the Commissioner passed the order, which is impugned in this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon two judgments of the Bombay High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court. The first relates to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Razak Haji Jummu v. United India Insurance Co. and Others Razak Haji Jummu v. United India Insurance Co. and Others Razak Haji Jummu v. United India Insurance Co. and Others 1995-I-LLJ-168 wherein the Bombay High Court, after referring to Section 19(1) of the W.C. Act, referred to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Madam Gopal and Others v. Anandi Lal and Others Madam Gopal and Others v. Anandi Lal and Others Madam Gopal and Others v. Anandi Lal and Others 1992 ACJ 543.

6. After referring to the Rajasthan High Court, in paragraph 6, the Court observed as follows:

“In the above referred case the High Court of Rajasthan has held that the expression “any person” includes the Insurance Company concerned. It is, therefore, obvious to me that if Insurance Company has agreed to discharge the liability of the employer under the Workmens Compensation Act, the liability of insurance company to indemnify the insurer shall have to be determined by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation in the same very proceeding by virtue of provisions contained in Section 19(1) of the Act, The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 is right in his submission that the Respondent No. l should be given further opportunity to contest the claim of the employer for indemnification inasmuch as the notice issued to respondent No. 1 by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation was restricted to the application for indemnification made by the employer invoking Section 12(2) of the Workmens Compensation Act.”

7. The second decision relates to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in South Eastern Coal