SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Latur, learned counsel for the appellant. ( 2 ) ON 30. 1. 1990, the appellant was constructing a residential building at site No. 337, 12th cross, ii block, r. t. Nagar, Bangalore. He had given contract to carry out the tile polishing work for the entire house to the respondent No. 3 who had employed the deceased to carry out the polishing work by machine. The machine which was brought by the deceased as per the direction of respondent No. 3 was out of order. As such, the deceased died due to electric shock. Hence the l. rs. Of the deceased filed w. c. a. Fc. Cr. No. 22 of 1990 before the workmen's compensation commissioner, division No. 2, visl building, Bangalore city. After hearing the case, the wc commissioner has passed the judgment and award for a sum of Rs. 71,498. 28 against the respondent No. 3 and the appellant apportioning the compensation equally. ( 3 ) MR. Latur, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the direction that the appellant is also responsible to pay 50 per cent of the compensation cannot sustain in the eyes of law in view of the decisions, namely, in case of Shantabai V. Sahadeo, 1985 ACJ 845 (Bombay) and in the case of bharat earth movers ltd. V. Bhagyamma by l. r. , 1975 ACJ 113 (karnataka ). The first decision is of the Bombay high court and second decision is of this court. ( 4 ) UNLESS it is shown that the appellant is the principal employer, he cannot be saddled with any liability. To fasten the liability two things are required, namely, that there was contract and he was principal employer. In the case on hand, of course, the appellant had given contract not for the purpose for which he was carrying the trade. These two decisions make it clear that the appellant is not responsible to pay any compensation. Hence it goes without saying that the direction of the commissioner that the appellant is also responsible to the extent of 50 per cent cannot sustain. This portion of the order is set aside. Hence the following order: in the result, the appeal is allowed, the portion of the order that the appellant is also responsible to the extent of 50 per cent is set aside. This portion of the order is set aside. Hence the following order: in the result, the appeal is allowed, the portion of the order that the appellant is also responsible to the extent of 50 per cent is set aside. The respondent No. 3 is also further directed to make good of this compensation to the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The amount that has been in deposit by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .