JUDGMENT : H.N. Seth, J.—This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act by Messrs Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills, Co. Ltd., is directed against an order dated 3-9-1971 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Sahranpur. 2. On 18-8-1969, Sri Loku Ram Mulya filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation against M/s. Maha Lakshmi Sugar Co. Ltd., Saharanpur (Respondent No. 1), M/s. Electric Controls, Tarang, Cole Colony, Nasik (Respondent No. 2). He alleged that he was an employee of M/s. Electric Controls, Nasik. In the year 1967 M/s. Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., placed an order with M/s. Electric Controls, Nasik for converting six of its units into centrifugal automation system. Besides other technical persons, M/s. Electric Controls deputed Sri Loku Ram Mulya to see that the machinery comprising of units Nos. 1 to 6 were converted and handed over to the Sugar Mills in working condition. Subsequently, Electric Controls deputed the applicant to look after and to attend to the minor defects, if any, that developed in the working of the machine in the ensuing sugar cane crushing season. On 14-12-1967, while the claimant was working on centrifugal machine No. 6, the boiler of machine No. 10 suddenly blasted off, resulting in the death of and injuries to a number of persons. The claimant was one of such injured persons. He accordingly, moved an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act and claimed compensation, amounting to Rs. 7,840/- for the permanent disability caused to him by reason of the injuries received by him from Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills and Electric Controls, Nasik. 3. The claim made by Loku Ram Mulya was resisted both by M/s. Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills Ltd., and M/s. Electric Controls, Nasik. According to M/s. Electric Controls, the applicant was no doubt its employee but his services had been lent to and kept at the disposal of M/s. Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills Ltd. Sri Mulya sustained injuries, resulting in reduction of his earning capacity, during the course of his employment with M/s. Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., and while he was working in the premises of M/s. Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills when an accidental blasting of unit No. 10, which was totally under the control of Sugar Mills took place. As for all practical purposes, Sri Mulya was, at the time of the accident, an employee of M/s. Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., and while he was working in the premises of M/s. Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills when an accidental blasting of unit No. 10, which was totally under the control of Sugar Mills took place. As for all practical purposes, Sri Mulya was, at the time of the accident, an employee of M/s. Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., it was that company alone which was liable to compensate him. 4. The case set up by Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., however, was that Sri Mulya was the employee of M/s. Electric Controls which used to pay him his wages. The position of M/s. Electric Controls was that of a contractor who had to complete a job under an agreement through its own employees and that the period of contract had not yet expired when the accident in question took place In the circumstances it was the responsibility of M/s. Electric Controls to compensate the claim and for any injury suffered by him during the course of his employment. 5. Subsequently, on 30-3-1970, M/s. Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., filed an additional written statement alleging that in the event of Court coming to the conclusion that it was Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., which was the principal employer liable to meet the claim of Sri Loku Ram Mulya, it may, as provided in Section 12(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, be directed to be indemnified by M/s. Electric Controls in their capacity as contractor. 6. The Compensation Commissioner, after going through the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the M/s- Electric Controls had lent on hire the service of Loku Ram Mulya to M/s. Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., was, for purposes of Workmen's Compensation Act, the employer of Loku Ram Mulya. It was as such its primary responsibility to pay compensation for the injury sustained by Loku Ram Mulya. Ltd., was, for purposes of Workmen's Compensation Act, the employer of Loku Ram Mulya. It was as such its primary responsibility to pay compensation for the injury sustained by Loku Ram Mulya. The Compensation Commissioner further held that inasmuch as, the relevant time, the services of Loku Ram Mulya stood temporarily let out to the Sugar Mills and that the accident had undoubtedly taken place due to negligence either of the Sugar Mills or of its employees, the Sugar Mills, was not entitled to claim any indemnity u/s 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, from Respondent No. 2 in the result he refused the claim of the Appellant for being indemnified by M/s Electric Controls and directed the Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills to pay a sum of Rs. 7,840/- as compensation to Loku Ram Mulya. Being aggrieved the Maha Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., has come up in appeal before this Court. 7. In support of his appeal learned Counsel for the Appellant made the following two submissions: (1) The finding recorded by the Compensation Commissioner that the services of Loku Ram Mulya had been let out to the Appellant and that the Appellant was at the relevant time its employee is wrong. In the circumstances of the case the Appellant was not primarily liable to pay compensation to the claimant. (2) The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation erred in holding that the Appellant was not entitled to be indemnified by M/s. Electric Controls, (Respondent No. 2). It may at this stage be pointed out that Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act lays down that no appeal against the order specified therein shall lie unless it involves a substantial question of law. The question whether at the time when the accident in question took place, the original employer had let out or hired the services of his employee to any other person is essentially a question of fact which has to be determined on the basis of evidence produced and the circumstances appearing in each case. The question whether at the time when the accident in question took place, the original employer had let out or hired the services of his employee to any other person is essentially a question of fact which has to be determined on the basis of evidence produced and the circumstances appearing in each case. After considering the evidence on the record as also the circumstances of the case, the Compensation Commissioner, has recorded a finding that at the crucial moment M/s. Electric Controls had let out the services of Loku Ram Mulya to the Appellant is a finding which cannot be said to be vitiated by a substantial error of law and the same cannot be interfered with in this appeal. Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act runs thus: (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 is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay any workmen employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workmen 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 references to the wages of the workman under the employer by whom he is immediately emyloyed. (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 the relation of a contractor from whom the workman could have recovered compensation) and all question as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. 8. 8. Sub-section (I) aforesaid makes the principal liable to pay compensation in circumstances mentioned therein also to a workman who is not in his direct or an immediate employment. This section has no application to a case where the liability to pay compensation is that of the direct or immediate employer of the injured workman Under this section the word 'principal' does not mean a person who employs a workman It means a person who enters into a contract with another person for the doing of a work which ordinarily forms part of his trade or business. Such principal has, on the one hand, been made liable to pay compensation to workman who at the time of the accident was in the immediate employment of the contractor, he has on the other hand, been enabled to claim indemnity for making such payment from the contractor who would normally have been liable to pay the same This section has no relevance to a case where the workman seeks to recover compensation directly from his immediate employer. Accordingly, once it is held that Loku Ram Mulya was at the time of the accident directly under the employment of the Appellant, as his services stood let out to or hired by it. No question of claiming u/s 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, indemnity from any other person arises. As stated above, the Compensation Commissioner, has found that at the time of the accident Loku Ram Mulva was in the immediate employment of the Appellant and that this finding does not suffer from any legal defect. So long as, this finding stands the question of Petitioners obtaing any indemnity under Sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act from the contractor cannot arise. In the result I find 9. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs to Sri Loku Ram Mulya alone. The interim stay order passed in this case is vacated.