Judgment :- The Judgment was delivered by : This appeal is directed against the order dated 22-1-1991 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation) Madras-6 in W.C. No. 8 of 1989. Brief facts of the case are :- The deceased Poochandran, husband of the first respondents and father of Respondents 2 to 4, was a workman employed by the appellant and the fifth respondent. On 6-8-1988, he had sustained personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment in deepening the well, in the land of the appellant. Poochandran succumbed to the injuries on 14-8-1988. After his death, the respondents 1 to 4 who are the dependents of the deceased, filed the claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, claiming of Rs. 29, 949/- as compensation and the same was ordered. As against the same, this appeal has been preferred. The appellant, in his counter had stated that the deceased Poochandran was not a workman under him and he was not at all employed for deepening of the well by the appellant. It is stated that digging of a new well was entrusted to the fifth respondent viz., Chengaiya Naidu and he had employed his own coolies. The deceased was an agriculturist and he was not a workman under the appellant. It is further stated that when the work of a digging of the new well was in progress, the deceased appears to have climbed upon the loose sand, slipped and fell down and that; therefore, he had not sustained any injuries out of and in the course of his employment under the appellant. Kasturi, wife of the deceased Poochandran, was examined as P.W. 1, who in her evidence had stated that her husband was employed by the appellant for digging of a new well and during the said work, there was a landslide, in which he caught and sustained injuries and subsequently he died.Chengaiya Naidu, the fifth respondent herein was the person, who reported the accident to the police on 14-8-1988 and the same was registered as the First Information Report, wherein it is stated that on 6-8-1988, he along with the deceased Poochandran, Krishna Naidu, Munirathnam, Manikkam and Govindan along with women workers were employed for digging a new well of the appellant and there was a landslide in which, the deceased Poochandran was caught. He was pulled out and thereafter, he was admitted in the hospital and died due to the injuries sustained by him. But, when he was examined on behalf of the appellant as R.W. 2, he had given a different version altogether stating that the deceased Poochandran had fallen due to the sliding of the mud and he was pulled out and then, he went to home and dies after 12 days. He also denied about the employment of the Poochandran as a worker under the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, after having taken into consideration all the aspects of the case and also the materials placed before him, came to the conclusion that the deceased Poochandran died while he was employed in digging the well of the appellant and awarded compensation. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the deceased Poochandran was not a "worker" under him and he never employed him for the purpose of digging the new well. But, on the other hand, the said work was entrusted to the fifth respondent, who had brought his own workers for digging the well and that, therefore, the deceased was not at all a workman under the appellant who would come within the definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Section 2(1)(n) of the Act defines, the word "workman" as 11 workman means any person other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business ....... "It is also submitted that the appellant was not an employer as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act which states that" employer includes a body of person whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into contract of service of apprenticeship, means such other person while the workman is working for him ". The digging of a new well was not a trade or business carried on by the appellant, but on the other hand, digging of the well is for agricultural lands for which workers were employed through a contractor and the said contractor had employed the workers of his own and that, therefore, the appellant was neither an employer nor the deceased was a workman.The respondents/claimants have issued a notice to the appellant on 7-11-1988, which has been marked as Ex. A-1, wherein they have stated that the deceased Poochandran was employed by the appellant for deepening of the well and during the course of the said employment, he had sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. To the said notice, the appellant gave a reply on 17-11-1988, which has been marked as Ex. A-3 wherein he had stated that one Chengaiya Naidu had entered into a contract with him to deepen the well on contract basis. He alone engaged labourers, and therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay the compensation. In the reply notice, the appellant had not chosen to state how the accident had taken place. But, however, in the counter, the appellant had stated that due to the landslide, the deceased Poochandran had fallen into the well and sustained injuries. Further, in the reply notice, the appellant had stated that the work was entrusted for depending the well on contract basis. But, in the counter, in paragraph 4, he had stated that he had given the contract to the fifth respondent for digging a new well. The contradictory statements made by the appellant in the reply notice and in the counter, would go to show that the appellant was not speaking the truth and hence, his case cannot safely be relied upon. It is also seen that the fifth respondent, having reported the matter to the police stating that Poochandran died only when he was working in the well of the appellant had retracted his statement when he was examined on behalf of the appellant and this also would go to show that the fifth respondent was not speaking the truth at the time of giving evidence. But, however, at the time when he had given the report to the police, the same was without any embellishment and hence, the First Information Report given by him could be accepted than his evidence.The appellant had admitted that he had entrusted the work of deepening of the well to the fifth respondent, who engaged his own workers for carrying out the said work. Even if that be so, the appellant would be a "Principal Employer" and the fifth respondent would be an "Immediate Employer" defined under Section 12 of the Act and that, therefore, the appellant being a Principal Employer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. No doubt, the employment of the deceased might have been of a casual nature as he was working as a cooly for deepening the well. But, nevertheless we cannot afford to forget the fact that the said well was deepened/dug for the appellant's agricultural purposes and the same was done through the fifth respondent and the deceased was employed in digging the well and in the course, of the said work, he had sustained injuries and died and, therefore, it has got to be held that the deceased was employed for the purposes of the appellant's work and the appellant as a principal employer is liable to pay the compensation. The learned advocate for the appellant has further submitted that the deceased would not come within the definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(1)(n) of the Act. By pointing out Schedule II (A1) of the Act, which states that" employed, otherwise than in clerical capacity, in the construction, boring or deepening of an open well/dug well through mechanical contrivances", the learned advocate for the appellant has strenuously argued that as no mechanical contrivances was used in this case, the deceased would not at all come within the definition of "workman". A careful reading of this Clause would disclose that if any one is employed for deepening of an open well, he would come within the definition of "workman". The appellant himself has admitted in his reply notice dated 17-11-1988 marked as Ex. A careful reading of this Clause would disclose that if any one is employed for deepening of an open well, he would come within the definition of "workman". The appellant himself has admitted in his reply notice dated 17-11-1988 marked as Ex. A-3, that my client further states that one Chengaiya Naidu, S/o Chippa Naidu, resident of Pulugurpalli, (via) Alangayam, had entered into contract with my client to "deepen the well on contract basis." Having admitted so, the appellant had given a different version in his counter that he had entered into a contract with the fifth respondent for digging a new well. The appellant made prevaricating statement in order to extricate himself from the clutches of his liability. The appellant having stated in the reply notice that the work was entrusted to him for a deepening of a well, which would squarely fall under Clause A-1 of Schedule II and that, therefore, the deceased comes within the definition of "workman".The age of the deceased and his monthly income as stated in the petition are not disputed. But, however, the learned advocate for the appellant has pointed out that the age of the deceased having been admitted as 30 years, at the time of working out the compensation payable, the Commissioner has committed an error by multiplying with 40 instead of 30 and the same is not correct and the same is not disputed by the Respondents 1 to 5, instead of 40, 30 could be adopted for calculation and if it is done, the compensation payable would come to Rs. 22, 461.80/-. In the result, the amount awarded by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I, is reduced from Rs. 29, 949/- to Rs. 22, 461.80/- and in all other respects, the findings of the Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I, Workmen's Compensation, Madras 6 is hereby confirmed. C.M.A. is ordered accordingly. No costs.