Judgment : Respondents 2 and 3 in W.C. No.21 of 1994, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Tiruchirapalli, are the appellants before this court. .2. First respondent herein was the petitioner before the Authority. According to him, his daughter Alagu Meenal was employed by the first respondent- Contractor (second respondent herein) when he undertook the work through third respondent, for digging a well, and, while she was working, suddenly she met with an accident due to the fall of a stone on her head, which further caused her to fall into the deep well. Even though her body was lifted by the other workers and she was rushed to hospital, she was pronounced dead. It is alleged that Alagu Meenal died while she met with the accident arising out of and in the course of employment under respondents 1 to 3. It is further said that the well for the farm of second respondent was being dug by third respondent. It is also said that Alagu Meenal was paid at the rate of Rs.75 per day, and she was receiving a monthly salary of Rs.750 during the course of employment. The family lost the earning capacity of the daughter and, therefore, compensation was claimed. 3. In the counter statement filed by third respondent, it is alleged that the second respondent wanted to dig a well at Anna Pannai. Tenders were invited for that work, and the tender submitted by Anna Labour Contract Co-operative Society was accepted and the work was entrusted to the said Society, and accordingly agreement was entered into between the Society and third respondent. According to third respondent, he is only an Authority to supervise and control the construction work in order to secure and maintain the efficiency and quality of work. The work was entrusted to the Society for actual execution, and it was for the Society to employ its own labourers for execution of the said work. The third respondent never engaged the deceased as a labourer, nor was the wages paid by the Department. There was no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and third respondent. Therefore, the third respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The authority under the Act held that all the respondents are liable to pay Compensation to the family of the deceased. It took note of Sec.12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There was no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and third respondent. Therefore, the third respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The authority under the Act held that all the respondents are liable to pay Compensation to the family of the deceased. It took note of Sec.12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It held that even though the employee was engaged by the contractor, it was for the trade and business purpose of third respondent, the work was done and, therefore, all the respondents are liable. 5. The order of the authority is under challenge in this appeal. .6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that being a Government organ, its activities cannot be treated as trade and business and, therefore, even the principal employer is not liable under Sec.12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. According to him, unless the activities are termed as ‘trade and business’, the respondent-Government cannot be made liable. He contended that digging of well at the instance of the State is neither a trade nor a business, and, therefore, it cannot be made liable to pay compensation. 7. It is true that under Sec. 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the principal employer is made liable even in respect of the worker engaged under a contractor, if the work entrusted with the contractor is connected with the trade and business of the principal employer. 8. In this case, the digging of the well is the work that was entrusted to the contractor, for which purpose, the deceased employee was employed. The question is, whether the digging of well is a trade or business. .9. In a Welfare State, any activity by the State for the welfare of the people, even though cannot be termed as ‘trade’, it will come within the definition of ‘business’. In Bai Mani and others v. Executive Engineer, (1987)1 A.C.C. 76, the Gujarat High Court had occasion to consider a case where the State Government through its Public Works Department, was doing excavation and construction work for the purpose of constructing a dam. In that case, the court said that the word ‘business’ has a much wider meaning and covers activities which may not be commercial and may include the construction work carried out by the Public Works Department. In that case, the court said that the word ‘business’ has a much wider meaning and covers activities which may not be commercial and may include the construction work carried out by the Public Works Department. In that case, the learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court followed an earlier decision of the same Court reported in Executive Engineer, Kadana Dam and another v. Phebiben and others, 1977 A.C.J. 204. That was also a case of construction of a dam by P.W.D., through a contractor. In that case, the court said that ‘the word ‘trade’ means ‘commercial activity’. But the word ‘business’ has a much wider connotation and covers activities which may not be commercial and may include the construction work carried out by the Public Works Department. Trade and business cover not only commercial activity but also may other activities which will be covered by the term ‘business’. In the earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court which was followed by the same Court in (1987)1 A.C.C. 76, it was said that, "construction of all sorts of work indisputably is the ordinary activity of the Public Works Department and one such ordinary activity was sought to be carried out through the contractor’. In this case, due to drought conditions, naturally, construction of wells and depending of existing wells is one of ordinary work of P.W.D., one of the State Departments, and, therefore, it could be considered as a ‘business’ coming within the scope of Sec. 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In that view of the matter, the finding of the authority that all the respondents are liable to compensate the claimant is justified. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. The connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed consequently.