Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the order dated 14.11.2006 and consequently direct the respondent to dispose of the petitioners application filed under Section 12(2) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘W.C. Act‘) in accordance with law. 2. By the impugned order dated 14.11.2006, the respondent Commissioner for Workmens Compensation informed the petitioner that on account of the accidental injury to one Madhavan on 2.6.2001, he filed Workmens Compensation Claim being W.C. No. 465 of 2001 and that a sum of Rs.1,88,980/- was ordered by an order dated 10.6.2003 towards compensation as well as interest and the same was deposited by the petitioner and it has also been given to the said injured Madhavan by the office of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation. It was also informed that by the order in W.C. No. 465 of 2001 that the petitioner, being the principal employer, was permitted to recover the amount from the respondents 2 and 3 in the W.C. Case and when those immediate employers failed to pay the amount, the petitioners were directed to approach the appropriate Civil Court and claim it by way of money suit. 3. I have heard Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. V. Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader representing the official respondent and have perused the records. 4. The only question that arises for consideration in the writ petition is that by virtue of the provisions of the W.C. Act if the Commissioner for Workmans Compensation (respondent) that in case a liability is fastened on the principal employer and if the principal employer satisfies the compensation ordered, whether there is any further obligation on the authority to recover the amounts from the contractors in terms of Section 12(2) of the W.C. Act. The petitioner, after disposal of W.C. No. 465 of 2001 filed an application purporting to be under Section 12(2) of the W.C. Act before the Commissioner and requested him to recover the award amount from the respondents 2 and 3 in the W.C. case. It was to this request, the Commissioner passed the order, which is impugned in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon two judgments of the Bombay High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court. It was to this request, the Commissioner passed the order, which is impugned in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon two judgments of the Bombay High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court. The first relates to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Razak Haji Jummu v. United India Insurance Co. and Others Razak Haji Jummu v. United India Insurance Co. and Others Razak Haji Jummu v. United India Insurance Co. and Others 1995-I-LLJ-168 wherein the Bombay High Court, after referring to Section 19(1) of the W.C. Act, referred to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Madam Gopal and Others v. Anandi Lal and Others Madam Gopal and Others v. Anandi Lal and Others Madam Gopal and Others v. Anandi Lal and Others 1992 ACJ 543. 6. After referring to the Rajasthan High Court, in paragraph 6, the Court observed as follows: “In the above referred case the High Court of Rajasthan has held that the expression “any person” includes the Insurance Company concerned. It is, therefore, obvious to me that if Insurance Company has agreed to discharge the liability of the employer under the Workmens Compensation Act, the liability of insurance company to indemnify the insurer shall have to be determined by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation in the same very proceeding by virtue of provisions contained in Section 19(1) of the Act, The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 is right in his submission that the Respondent No. l should be given further opportunity to contest the claim of the employer for indemnification inasmuch as the notice issued to respondent No. 1 by the Court of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation was restricted to the application for indemnification made by the employer invoking Section 12(2) of the Workmens Compensation Act.” 7. The second decision relates to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Asha 2001- III-LLJ (Suppl)-102. In that judgment, after referring to Section 12 of the W.C. Act, in paragraph 9, the Court observed as follows at p. 104 of LLJ: “ 9. It would also appear that sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the ‘Act‘ provides that where the principal is required to pay under that Section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor. It would also appear that sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the ‘Act‘ provides that where the principal is required to pay under that Section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor. It further provides that all questions as to the right to and the amount of, any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement shall be settled by the Commissioner.” 8. Alsoreferring to Rule 39, in paragraphs 11 to 13, the Court observed as follows: “ 11. Clearly, therefore, Rule 39 of the Rules‘ prescribes the procedure, where indemnity is claimed by the principal under Section 12(2) of the Act. It provides the manner of dealing with the Act and procedure to be followed when an application is filed by the. principal, under Section 12(2) of the ‘Act‘. It further provides that the Commissioner shall record in his judgment, a finding as to whether the person against whom indemnity is claimed, is liable to indemnify or not.” 12. Obviously, therefore, the above provisions in the ‘Act‘ and the ‘Rules‘ clearly indicate that the principal can seek indemnity of the amount of compensation paid by him to the claimants, from the contractor, under Section 12(2) of the ‘Act‘. On the ‘principal‘ making such a prayer, the Commissioner is to act in accordance with the procedure under the ‘Rules‘ and specifically under Rule 39 of the ‘Rules‘. 13. Therefore, the observation in the impugned Order that the ‘principal‘ should take recourse to the Civil Court for his prayer of indemnification, appears to be erroneous, and the same is not in keeping with the above provisions of the ‘Act‘ and the ‘Rules‘. 9. I do not think the decisions lay down the correct position of law and I respectfully disagree with the same. Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M. P. v. Chitrekha 2000-I-LLJ-919 considered the scope of Section 12 (2) of the PF Act and held as follows at p. 922 of LLJ: “ 11. …. from a reading of Section 12 of the Workmens compensation Act, the object is apparent, that is, to protect the workman and secure compensation for him from persons in a better position to pay, who then are to be indemnified by the contractor, for which the provision is made in sub-section (2) of Section 12.” 10. …. from a reading of Section 12 of the Workmens compensation Act, the object is apparent, that is, to protect the workman and secure compensation for him from persons in a better position to pay, who then are to be indemnified by the contractor, for which the provision is made in sub-section (2) of Section 12.” 10. Therefore, on the strength of this, the learned counsel states that it is not enough if the Commissioner should pass an order of indemnity but also he must use the machinery vested on him by the Workmens Compensation act and recover the amounts from the contractors. I am unable to agree with the said submission. The recovery machinery provided in the W.C. Act is essentially for the workmen to seek compensation either against the immediate employer or against the principal employer. Once the compensation amount is due, the obligation to recover the same by taking distraint proceedings ( i. e. by the issuance of revenue recovery certificate) may also fall on the Commissioner. But that does not take his role to any illogical conclusions. 11. The dispute between the contractor and the principal employer cannot be solved by the Commissioner and the recovery machinery can‘t be used in case of indemnity and the amounts from the contractors realised to be paid to the principal employer. In fact, the Section only talks about indemnifying the payment made by the principal employer by the contractors. Rule 39 nowhere provides that the recovery machinery is to be put at the disposal of the principal employer as against the contractor. At the maximum, the Commissioner can only pass orders fixing the liability to take with that further right of the principal employer to get indemnity from the contractors. But that power does not automatically enable the Commissioner to make recovery proceedings as against the contractors. The Act is not intended for such collateral proceedings. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has correctly stated that the petitioner will have to invoke the machinery of Civil Court on the basis of the indemnity order issued by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation. 12. In the fight of the same, the writ petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.