The liability of the principal under Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is contingent upon the work being ordinarily a part of the principal's trade or business.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Misra, J. - All these eight appeals are directed against the appellate decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation heard all the eight cases analogously as common questions of fact and law arose. The miscellaneous appeals were also analogously heard and disposed of by a common judgment. For convenience, we propose to dispose of all these appeals also by a common judgment.

2. One E.K. Krishnan under took execution of hume pipe culverts for the Ambaguda M.I.P. Canal crossing the National Highway No. 43 at different places within the district of Koraput on behalf of the State of Orissa the Executive Engineer, National Highway, Division No. II was the appropriate authority looking after the execution of the work. In course of the work, in a mishap-8 of the workers employed by the contractor were buried alive under the earth and met with death. The dependants of the deceased workmen preferred claims before the Commissioner for compensation impleading the contractor as also the Executive Engineer concerned representing the State. Liability of the State through the Executive Engineer was pleaded by placing reliance on Section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner held the contractor as also the principal (the executive engineer representing the State) liable for the amount of compensation determined in respect of the several claims. Against the said decision of the Commissioner, the Executive Engineer carried eight separate appeals before this Court being the said decision of the Commissioner, the Executive Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 95 to 102 of 1975. The claimants did not appear in-spite of notice. The learned Single Judge was assisted at the hearing by a senior counsel of this Court amicus curiae and the learned Single Judge concurred with the decision of the Commissioner and dismissed the appeals. It is against the common affirming appellate decision in those appeals, that the present appeals have been carried.

3. Section 12 of the Act provides:

1. Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him ; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the workman under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.

2. Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered the compensation and where a contract or who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the workman could have recovered the compensation, and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.

3. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a workman from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of principal.

xx xx xx xx

The object behind the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, as was pointed out in the case of Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Bombay Co. (P) Ltd., Madras is to secure compensation to the workman