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. 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 who cannot fight out his battle for compensation by a speedy process. 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 who cannot fight out his battle for compensation by a speedy process. A person who employs others to advance his own business and interest is expected to provide a surer basis for payment of the compensation to the injured workman than the intermediary who may often turn out to be a man of straw, from whom compensation may not be available. An analysis of Section 12 of the Act would present the following essentials for the applicability of the provision: (i) The principal is carrying on trade or business and in the course of or for the purpose of that trade or business engages a contractor to execute the work. (ii) The work in question is ordinarily a part of trade or business of the principal. (iii) The accident must have occurred on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes to execute the work or which is in his control or management. (iv) The accident must have occurred while the workman was in the course of his employment in executing the work. If all these conditions are not satisfied, the liability of the principal by application of Section 12 of the Act would not arise. The scheme in Section 12 clearly indicates that the liability for compensation is ultimately of the contractor. So far as the workman is concerned, he is entitled to recover the same from the principal and the principal has a statutory right to indemnify himself by recovering the amount paid by him from the contractor. With a view to avoiding protracted litigation, the Act makes both of them liable and enables the workman to recover the compensation from the principal and leaves the principal to indemnify himself by recovering the amount from the contractor. 4. In these cases, the liability of the contractor to pay the compensation is not in dispute. With a view to avoiding protracted litigation, the Act makes both of them liable and enables the workman to recover the compensation from the principal and leaves the principal to indemnify himself by recovering the amount from the contractor. 4. In these cases, the liability of the contractor to pay the compensation is not in dispute. The public officer on behalf of the State has taken the stand that the work in course of execution out of which the accident took place is not ordinarily a part of trade or business of the State, and, therefore, Section 12 of the Act has no application and the Commissioner as also the learned single Judge has gone wrong in making the concerned Executive Engineer liable for the compensation. 5. Section 2(2) of the Act provides: The exercise and performance of the powers and duties of a local authority of any department acting on behalf of the Government shall, for the purposes of this Act, unless a contrary intention appears, be deemed to be the trade or business of such authority or department. In view of this deeming provision in the statute, the learned single Judge relied on the observation of Lord Asquith in the case of East and Dwellings Co. Ltd v. Finsbury Borough Council (1952) A.C. 109 at p. 132. If you are hidden to treat an imaginary stage of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it.... The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. And accepted the stand of the claimants that the work in question was included in trade or business of the State. The view indicated by the Privy Council has been accepted by the Supreme Court in a series of cases. It cannot be disputed that it is the duty of the State to provide canals for irrigation and roads for communication. The work in the instant cases was to construct hume pipe culverts for an irrigation project canal crossing the National High Way at different places. It cannot be disputed that it is the duty of the State to provide canals for irrigation and roads for communication. The work in the instant cases was to construct hume pipe culverts for an irrigation project canal crossing the National High Way at different places. We have, therefore, no doubt that Sub-section (2) of Section 2 squarely applies to the fact of these cases and the learned single Judge was, therefore, justified in placing reliance on this provision in interpreting Section 12 of the Act where the concept of trade or business is. to be found. In the case of Sardara Singh Narinjan Singh Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Chandpur and Another, the dispute as to the liability of Government u/s 12(1) of the Act for payment of compensation in respect of an accident arising in course of construction of lining of canal was in issue. A learned single Judge took the view that the accident in course of the work came within Section 12(1) of the Act. According to the learned Single Judge, the main business of the Irrigation Department was to maintain the canals in proper trim and to arrange for the storage and supply of water for irrigation and other connected purposes. It is an essential part of the Irrigation Department work to plan and lay out canals by which means the water can be supplied to the public bringing revenue to the Department. Therefore, the construction of the canals cannot be separated from the lining of the canals as well as their maintenance there after and must be treated to be in the ordinary course of the business or trade of the Irrigation Department. The learned single Judge came to his conclusion even without referring to Section 2(2) of the Act. In the case of S.M. Ghose Vs. National Sheet and Metal Works Ltd. and Another Harries, C.J. in a Division Bench examined the scope of both the Sub-sections of Section 12 of the Act and observed: In order to come within Section 12(1) the workman, as I have stated, must prove two things. In the case of S.M. Ghose Vs. National Sheet and Metal Works Ltd. and Another Harries, C.J. in a Division Bench examined the scope of both the Sub-sections of Section 12 of the Act and observed: In order to come within Section 12(1) the workman, as I have stated, must prove two things. Firstly that the principal in the course of and for the purposes of his trade or business entered into a contract with the contractor and secondly, the work, the subject matter of the contract with the contractor, was work which ordinarily formed the whole or part of the trade or business of the principal.... In view of the legal fiction in Section 2(2) of the Act, we are inclined to agree with the learned Single Judge's conclusion that the work in question was a part of the trade or business of the State and it also ordinarily formed part of trade or business of the State. Both the requirements for application of Section 12(1) of the Act are thus satisfied. 6. Learned Government Advocate in course of his submissions pointed out that reference to Article 166 of the Constitution for the meaning of Governmental business was uncalled for. We are inclined to agree with him. But it is unnecessary to examine that aspect as independent of reference to that article, we have come to the conclusion that the work in question keeping in view the legal fiction provided by the statute, came within the trade or business of the Government and the requirements of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act are satisfied. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act applies if Sub-section (1) is attracted. As we have taken the view that Sub-section (1) of Section 12 applies and the principal has liability to bear the burden of compensation, the employer is entitled to be indemnified out of the contract or's dues. 7. The appeals fail and are dismissed. As there was no appearance for the Respondents, we make no direction for costs. Final Result : Dismissed