EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. SANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question argued by the Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, who was the 4th respondent before the Workmen's compensation Commissioner, is with respect to the indemnity under S. 12 (2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. That sub-section reads as follows: " (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 compensation and where a contractor 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 relation of a contractor from whom the workman could have 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

(2.) IN the course of the discussion under issue No. 5, which related to "whether the Opposite Party No. 4 is the principal employer, and if so, whether he is liable to pay the compensation to the applicant". It has been stated as follows: "the work-site also belonged to the PWD. If so, opposite Party No. 4 must be considered as the principal employer. Therefore, he is liable to pay compensation under S. 12 of the Act. The applicant impleade d Opposite Party No. 4 as the principal employer Sh e has also claimed compensation from him. Hence Opposite Party No. 4 is liable to pay the same. The Opposite Party No. 4 has not claimed any indemnity from Opposite Party No. 1. Therefore, no indemnity is ordered. "