JUDGMENT 1. - Three separate claim petitions were filed before the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Banswara, by Rukma son of Gotiya W.C. case No. 3/96/Shanti D/o Tejiya W.C. case No. 10/96; Mohan s/o Raoji Bhil W.C. case No. 4/96 against the appellant Assistant Engineer, G.W.D. Banswara as well as against the appellant additional Collector (Dev.), Banswara. Since all these three claim petitions arose out of one and same accident and parties were common, therefore, the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner", for short) by common impugned judgment and award dated 20.11.1998 decided all the claim petitions together and passed the award in favour of the respective respondents claimants (hereinafter referred as "the claimants" for short). 2. Being aggrieved by the common impugned judgment and award, the appellant Assistant Engineer GWD, Banswara (for short GWD) preferred three separate appeals i.e. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals Nos. 75/99, 76/99 and 77/99. Similarly against the very same impugned common award the Additional Collector (Development) District Rural Development Authority, Banswara (hereinafter referred as "DRDA" for short), filed three separate appeals S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 62/99, 63/99 and 64/99 before this Court. In all the aforesaid six appeals the facts and law are common and, therefore, it is convenient to decide these aforesaid appeals by this common judgment. 3. These appeals were admitted on sole substantial question of law "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is not to liable pay compensation wholly or partly under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?" 4. Briefly stated the facts out of which aforesaid six appeals arise are that three separate claim petitions were filed by the respective claimant before the learned Commissioner stating therein that they are workmen and they were engaged by the appellant Assistant Engineer G.W.D., Banswara to carry out the work at Richhadi Jalothan Project, Banswara. It was averred that their employer GWD undertaking the work of blasting and as such while doing the blasting work at the site of Richhadi Jalothan Project Banswara on 12.4.95, due to sudden blast, aforesaid three claimants and other sustained personal injuries, which resulted in 100 per cent permanent disablement. The claimants lost their total vision due to the injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident, which resulted in total blindness. 5. The claimants lost their total vision due to the injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident, which resulted in total blindness. 5. It was further averred that the personal injuries caused to aforesaid 3 workmen claimants by aforesaid accident arise out and in the course of their employment and, therefore, the employer is liable to pay compensation in accordance with provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). The appellant DRDA was also impleaded as party non-applicant, as the work which was carried out by the Assistant Engineer G.W.D. was being done under the orders of DRDA, since the work of Richhadi Project was being carried by Samudaik Jalodhan irrigation Project Richhadi Project by the DRDA and the blasting work for digging drains was assigned to the Assistant Engineer GWD and, therefore, the Additional Collector (Development), District Rural Development Authority was impleaded in the capacity of principal employer. 6. Both the appellants filed their written statements to the claim petitions filed by the claimants. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed the issues and tried the case. Vide impugned judgment and award the learned Commissioner awarded compensation in favour of the claimants and against both the appellants in all the three separate claim cases. 7. In the reply filed by the GWD, it was averred that the blasting for the purpose of digging the drainage was carried out by the GWD under the orders of the Additional Collector Development (Rural), Gramin Vikas Abhikaran, Banswara (DRDA) vide their letter No. 9582 dated 28th December 1994 Ex.A/1 and, therefore, however, it was admitted by the appellant GWD that the blasting work was carried out by his department at Richhadi Project, Banswara, for the purpose of digging the drains. The fact that the workmen claimants who sustained injuries due to sudden blasting while they were working on the site and sustained personal injuries which resulted in loss of total vision was not disputed. In view of the Ex.A/1 the GWD set up the case that if at all any compensation is to be awarded to the workmen who suffered personal injuries, then DRDA being principal employer is liable to pay compensation and the GWD being the contracting party and was undertaking the work in the contract and under the orders of DRDA. In this view of matter the 'GWD' denied the liability. In this view of matter the 'GWD' denied the liability. DRDA in their reply denied the liability on the ground that although the blasting work was done in pursuance of the order Ex.A/1 issued by them for the purpose of digging drains but the work was independently entrusted to the 'GWD' and, therefore, appellant DRDA contended that liability to pay compensation to the workmen claimants must rest with 'GWD'. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and scrutinized, evaluated the evidence available on record exhaustively. 9. In support of the claim petition, claimant Rakma son of Gotiya stated on oath before the learned Commissioner that he was engaged for the purpose of digging of the drains. The work was carried out by the GWD and due to negligence of employee of the GWD, while he along with other workmen were working on the machine of GWD for the purpose of blasting, suddenly detonator (tota) which was planted a day before, blasted and due to this sudden blasting he sustained personal injuries on his both eyes. He also stated that there were four more persons who were also working at the relevant time, namely, Mohan, Shanti and Bapuda also sustained the personal injuries. He stated that they were employed by GWD and it was agreed that they would be paid wages at the Government rate applicable to daily wage workers. They have been working for last 15 days prior to happening of the said accident. This witness clearly deposed that due to the injuries he has lost total vision and became total blind. A certificate issued by the doctor Ex. P/5 was placed on record. The certified copy of F.I.R. Ex. 1 and injury report Ex. 2 were also filed. This witness was subjected to lengthy cross examination and in cross examination he clearly stated that daily wages were to be paid by the DRDA as the work was done for the DRDA by the GWD as GWD was carrying out the work under the orders of DRDA and out of budget of the DRDA. 10. Similarly in the case of Mohan son of Raoji, he stated on oath before the Commissioner that he was engaged for the purpose of digging the drains by JEN and AEN of GWD on 12.4.995. 10. Similarly in the case of Mohan son of Raoji, he stated on oath before the Commissioner that he was engaged for the purpose of digging the drains by JEN and AEN of GWD on 12.4.995. They were working on the site for digging the drains with the machine belonging to GWD, it was operated by the driver of GWD, while they were working for digging the drains, a detonator (tota) suddenly basted and due to this sudden blast, all the four persons who were working at the site at the relevant time he (Mohan), Rakma, Shanti and Bapuda sustained personal injuries. He stated that they used to be paid at the rate of Rs. 32/- per day and they were working at the site since 15 days prior to the date of accident. He placed on record F.I.R. Ex. 1, injury report Ex. 2 and certain other documents relating to the treatment Exs. 3 to 13. He also placed on record Ex. P. 14 a certificate issued by the Senior Specialist and Head of the department of Orthopaedic, MHG, Banswara, regarding disablement. Ex. A/1 was placed on record, a letter dated 28th December, 1994 issued by the DRDA addressed to Assistant Engineer G.W.D. for the purpose of blasting work to be done by GWD at Samudaik Jalothan Sinchai Pariyojna, Richhadi Pariyojana, Banswara. 11. In cross examination also he clearly stated that he along with others employed by the JEN and AEN of GWD and they only were to pay them the daily wages. 12. Claimant Shanti d/o. Tejiya also stated on oath before the learned Commissioner that for last 15 days from the happening of the accident, she was engaged for the work by GWD as the work of digging drains was carried out by the GWD and while she along with other workers was working on the machine of GWD for digging drains by blasting a detonator (tota) suddenly blasted and due to this sudden blasting, she sustained injuries on both the eyes and ultimately due to accident she lost total vision and became permanent blind. She further stated that along with other workers she was paid @ Rs. 32/- per day wages at the site. She has placed on record the F.I.R. Ex. 1, injury report Ex. 2 and permanent disablement certificate issued by the doctor Ex. 4. 13. She further stated that along with other workers she was paid @ Rs. 32/- per day wages at the site. She has placed on record the F.I.R. Ex. 1, injury report Ex. 2 and permanent disablement certificate issued by the doctor Ex. 4. 13. She clearly deposed that she became completed blind as such injuries has resulted in total permanent disablement. She further stated that she was engaged on the work of GWD. She further stated that GWD agreed to pay daily wages and accordingly, they were paid the wages by the GWD. Dr. Sushil Chandra Mehta, Junior Specialist, (Opthalmology) M. G. H., Banswara stated on oath that he examined Shanti d/o. Tejiya and on examination, he found "Pithisis Bulbi". He cetegorically stated that the injured person became complete blind from both the eyes and it has resulted in permanent disablement. He proved Ex. 4 certificate issued by him. 14. In the case of Mohan claimant, Dr. Ram Ratan Nagora, Senior Specialist, Orthopaedics was examined. He has proved Ex. 4 issued in favour of Mohan s/o. Raoji dated 13.7.1996. He clearly stated on oath before the learned Commissioner that on 12.4.95. Mohan was admitted in hospital on account of injuries sustained vide Registration No. 4723 and thereafter he was referred to Udaipur. At Udaipur, he underwent operation and a plate was inserted. He clearly stated that due to injuries on right leg of Mohan, it resulted in permanent shortening of leg by one inch and the movement of the leg has been reduced by 75 degree to 40 degree and this restriction of movement was due to shortening of the leg which is permanent in nature. According to his opinion, these injuries have resulted in permanent disablement to the extent of 25%. 15. In the case of Rakma, Dr. Sushil Chandra Mehta P.W. 2 was examined before the learned Commissioner. He clearly stated that he was working as Junior Specialist (Opthalmology) at MGH, Banswara. He examined Rakma s/o. Gautam resident of Richhadi. On examination, he found that both the eyes of Rakma have resulted in loss of vision in both the eyes. Accordingly to this witness, the person whom he examined became complete blind due to injuries. This witness has proved Ex. 4 issued by him. 16. The appellant GWD produced Shri Hansraj, Assistant Engineer of GWD as witness. On examination, he found that both the eyes of Rakma have resulted in loss of vision in both the eyes. Accordingly to this witness, the person whom he examined became complete blind due to injuries. This witness has proved Ex. 4 issued by him. 16. The appellant GWD produced Shri Hansraj, Assistant Engineer of GWD as witness. This witness being Officer-in-Charge of this case also, stated on oath that on 12.4.95 work of blasting was undertaken under the instructions and orders of Assistant Collector Development (DRDA), Banswara. He produced an order dated 28.12.94 issued by the DRDA, Banswara addressed to Assistant Engineer GWD, Banswara wherein the GWD, Banswara was directed to dig the drains for about 50 ft. The subject matter of the letter is to do blasting work for Samudaik Jalothan Sinchai Pariyojna, Richhadi Pariyojana, Panchayat Samiti Pipeelkhut. By the letter AEN GWD was directed to dig the drains since there were rocks measuring 50 ft. in length and until and unless rock is removed water pipe line could not be installed and for that purpose AEN GWD was directed to dig the drains in the presence of Junior Engineer of DRDA. In the very letter, it is clearly mentioned that on completion of work of digging the drains, the bill may be sent to DRDA for payment. 17. This witness clearly admitted that while Bhagwan Singh was an employee of GWD and was engaged as Blaster, and the blasting work was carried out at Richhadi Pariyojana under his control. AEN Shri Hansraj in clear terms admitted that blasting work was carried out by him and under his control. He stated that for the purpose of development work, the scheme and budget were sanctioned by DRDA. He admitted that Rukma s/o. Gautam was working on the site for the purpose of blasting and due to this accident, he lost the vision of both the eyes and became completely blind. Witness Hansraj was examined in all the aforesaid three claim cases, No. 3/96, No. 4/96 and No. 10/96 and made a similar statement in all the aforesaid three claim cases. He also admitted in clear terms that blasting work was carried out by this department i.e. GWD. 18. Another witness Shri Vijay Kumar Mahawat, Assistant Engineer of DRDA, Banswara was examined on behalf of the appellant DRDA. He also admitted in clear terms that blasting work was carried out by this department i.e. GWD. 18. Another witness Shri Vijay Kumar Mahawat, Assistant Engineer of DRDA, Banswara was examined on behalf of the appellant DRDA. He also stated on oath that blasting work at Richhadi LIft Priyojna was assigned to Assistant Engineer GWD and both the departments are independent. Department of DRDA and GWD are tow different departments of the State. This witness stated that workmen were employed by GWD. In cross-examination, he admitted that the work which was carried out by GWD for the Richhadi Lift Pariyojna, was assigned to the GWD by DRDA and it was the DRDA who was to make payment for the work done by the GWD. This witness was examined in all the aforesaid three claim cases and made a similar statement that the work of blasting at the Richhadi Pariyojna was assigned to the GWD by the order of the DRDA. At the time of accident, blasting work was carried out by the GWD and it was the GWD who was employed the workmen. Although, this witness clearly admitted that the work was assigned by the DRDA to GWD and DRDA was to make payment for the work carried out by the GWD. 19. From the statement of the claimants Rakma, Shanti and Mohan it is clear that they were under direct the employment of appellant GWD and DRDA being their principal employer. It is clear that on 12.4.95 while they were engaged on the work of blasting carried out by the GWD under the orders and instructions of DRDA vide Ex. A/1 all these three claimants workmen sustained personal injuries, which resulted in permanent disablement. This fact has not been seriously disputed by either of the appellants. Thus, it is clear that claimants workmen sustained personal injuries by accident arising out and in the course of their employment with respective employers and thus they are entitled for the compensation as awarded by the learned Commissioners. 20. There is not serious challenge by either of the appellants with regard to the permanent disablement and quantum of compensation assessed in favour of the claimants. The main contention raised by both the appellants is regarding their liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. 20. There is not serious challenge by either of the appellants with regard to the permanent disablement and quantum of compensation assessed in favour of the claimants. The main contention raised by both the appellants is regarding their liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. The appellant GWD clearly admitted that the blasting work at Richhadi Pariyojna was carried out by them under the control and supervision of AEN of appellant GWD. It has also not been disputed that claimants were engaged as workmen for the purpose of digging the drains by blasting carried out by the appellant GWD and as such they were the workmen. It is undisputed that the claimants had sustained injuries during the course of their employment. From the statement of claimants, it has also been established that they were engaged by the appellant GWD to carry out the work of digging drains through blasting machine owned and operated by the appellant GWD. While the blasting machine was in operation, suddenly a detonator (tota) blasted and due to this sudden blasting, workmen-claimants, who were engaged on the blasting work sustained injuries. It is also been established from the statement of claimants as well as the statement of Hansraj AEN of GWD as well as the statement of Vijay Kumar Mahawat of DRDA that vide Ex. A/1 under the scheme of Samudaik Jalothan Pariyojna, Richhadi Priyojna, Pipeelkhut, the appellant DRDA was to install a water pipe line under the aforesaid scheme and as such, work of installation of water pipe line was done by the DRDA under the scheme and path allotted to them. Since there was rocky area and therefore, in order to install the water pipe line, the digging work in rocky area for a distance of 50 ft. in length was to be carried out, which DRDA was not in a position to do and, therefore, vide order Ex. A/1 directed the Assistant Engineer GWD to carry out digging work by way of blasting and for this work appellant DRDA agreed to make payment of bill being sent to them. This fact is not in dispute the DRDA being Principal employer and GWD being contracting party to carry out the work for principal DRDA. A/1 directed the Assistant Engineer GWD to carry out digging work by way of blasting and for this work appellant DRDA agreed to make payment of bill being sent to them. This fact is not in dispute the DRDA being Principal employer and GWD being contracting party to carry out the work for principal DRDA. Whole of the work of blasting and digging drains was carried out for the principal and, therefore, principal is liable to pay compensation to the workmen employees who sustained injuries while they were executing the work for principal employer DRDA. 21. It has also been established from the evidence on record and more particularly by Ex. A/1 that the principal-employer DRDA assigned the work to GWDS and as such, there was a contract between two departments for execution of the work i.e. digging the drains by carrying out blasting work and the workmen were employed by the GWD who is contracting party for principal employer DRDA. It has also been established that the payment for carrying out/executing this work or DRDA was to be made by DRDA to GWD vide Ex. A/1 and, therefore, principal employer DRDA as well as contracting party GWD both are liable for payment of compensation to the workmen claimants, who sustained employment injuries. 22. Section 12(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act envisages that 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 workmen 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 contractor from whom the workman could have recovered 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. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 provides that nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a workman from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal. 23. From the above provisions it is clear that the respondent claimants are entitled for compensation both from principal DRDA and contracting party GWD. 24. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 provides that nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a workman from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal. 23. From the above provisions it is clear that the respondent claimants are entitled for compensation both from principal DRDA and contracting party GWD. 24. Having therefore examined aforesaid three cases both on principal and authority, it is crystal clear that once the Additional Collector (Dev.) DRDA, a department of the State decided to exercise its power of installation of water pipe line at Richhadi Pariyojna, Banswara, the activity of Assistant Engineer GWD for digging drain by undertaking the work of blasting, was more specifically business activity of principal DRDA and, therefore, appellant DRDA as principal is liable to pay the compensation to the workmen who sustained the personal injury while executing the work or business activity of appellant DRDA. 25. Now comes the question of liability of the appellant GWD. It has been established by the statement of the claimants and the statement of the witnesses examined by GWD i.e. AEN Hansraj as well as from the statement of AEN Vijay Kumar of the DRDA coupled with the fact of issuance of letter Ex- 4/1 dated 28th Dec., 1994 issued by DRDA addressed to AEN GWD, it makes out the case that the principal employer DRDA contracted the AEN GWD to execute the work of digging drains by undertaking the work of blasting. This agreement was entered into because the area through which water pipe line was to be installed by DRDA was a rocky area and, therefore, unless and until rocks are removed by blasting work through GWD, the installation of water pipe line could not be carried out by the DRDA. 26. In view of overwhelming material on record, the respondents claimants sustained injuries while executing the work of digging drain, for this they were engaged by the GWD for carrying out the work of digging drain by blasting through machine, which was owned and operated by the GWD and as such workmen were employed by the GWD at the rate lo Rs. 32/- per day. 32/- per day. While working at the site of Richhadi Lift Pariyojna there was a sudden blast of detonator (tota) and that resulted in causing injuries of the claimants and as such GWD being in contract with the employer DRDA is equally responsible for making payment of compensation to the claimants for their personal injuries. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, no error could be found with the judgment and award impugned passed by the learned Commissioner. 28. In view of aforesaid discussion, I hold the appellant Additional Collector (Development) District Rural Development Authority as a principal employer liable for payment of compensation as well appellant Assistant Engineer GWD, Banswara liable for payment of compensation to the respondent claimants of all the three claim cases i.e. W.C. Case Nos. 3/96, 4/96 and 10/96. According, there is no merit in all the aforesaid six appeals. 29. Accordingly, the appeal Nos. 75/99, 76/99 and 77/99 filed by Assistant Engineer GWD as well as appeal Nos. 62/99, 63/99 and 64/99 filed by Additional Collector (Development) DRDA are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******