The construction of canals is in the ordinary course of business or trade of the Irrigation Department and the State Government is, therefore, liable to pay compensation under Section 12(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Harbans Singh, J.

1. Facts giving rise to these Firs-Appeals from Order may briefly be stated as follows: The work of lining of Nangal Hydel Channel was given on contract basis to a number of contractors. Certain portions of the canal were entrusted to each one of the various contractors. The portion between ED 157375 and 157500 warwith M/s. Sardara Singh Niranjan Singh, On 12th of May, 1954, at about 8.30 a. in. G. M. C. (sic) No. PNE 3569 loaded with bajri was going along the ramp leading to the canal bank when its power failed and it began to go dowp the slop-of the ramp. It got out of control and ultimately overturned resulting in serious injuries to two of the labourers employed on the truck. The injured werei removed to the hospital and the matter was reported to the Sub-Divisional Officer wh(sic) sent a report to the police. It was found by the police to be a mere accident.

Under the Workmens Compensation Act Rs. 2,016/- were paid by the State Govt. to Meha-Singh and Rs. 1,680/- to Tarsem Singh in respect of the injuries suffered by them. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 the Government, after having paid the amount, as the principal, claimed to be indemnified by the contractor. Inter alia, is detained a sum of Rs. 3,696/- which was due to M/s. Mohinder Singh Gurbachan Singh who were said to be the owners of the truck of the persons working the truck. It may be mentioned here that Mohinder Singh Gurbachan Singh had also the contract of lining the canal over a portion of the canal. Mohinder Singh Gurbachan Singh got (sic) notice issued to the Government under Section (sic) Civil Procedure Code, calling upon it not to detain the amount. The Superintending Engineer, Nangal Circle, Rupar, consequently, referred the matter to the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act for determining the dispute about the right of the Government to seek indemnity. According to M/s. Mohinder Singh Gur-bachan Singh the truck in question at the time of the accident, was working under the control and for the business of M/S. Sardara Singh Narinjan Singh and consequently, both the.firms Sardara Singh Narinjan Singh and Mohinder Singh Gur-bachan Singh were made parties. A number of preliminary matters were raised which it is not necessary to detail here.

The main issues were as follows :-

(1) Whether M/S. Mohinder Singh Gurbachan Singh were appointed as contractors of M/S. Sardara Singh Niranjan Singh respondents or vice versa?

(2) Whether M/S. Mohinder Singh Gurbachan Singh were doing any work of the respondent firm or vice versa by means of truck No. PNE 3569 on the date and the time of accident?

(3) If the above issues were proved whether the respondents were not legally liable for the indemnification of the amount paid to the injured labourers ?

The position taken up by M/s. Sardara Singh Niranjan Singh was that their lining work had finished and they never got any bajri through this truck. On the other hand, the position taken up by M/s. Mohinder Singh Gurbachan Singh was that about 6 to 7 days before the occurrence, through the good offices of Mehar Singh, Overseer in charge, the services of the truck had been lent to M/s Sardara Singh Niranjan Singh and the labourers were also engaged and paid by that firm. The learned trial Court found that the plea taken by M/s. Mohinder Singh Gurbachan Singh was false and that the track was not under the control of or exclusively iised by M/s. Sardara Singh Niranjan Singh, However, it found that both the firms were in the nature of contractors from the Government and because the Government as the principal, had paid the compensation under Sub-section (i) of Section 12 of the Workmens Compensation Act, both the firms were liable jointly and severally to indemnify the Government. Both the firms have filed separate appeals against this order.

2. On behalf of M/s. Mohinder Singh Gurbachan Singh the main point raised is that construction or lining of the canal cannot be said to be the ordi