Judgment :- This appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, Salem in W.C.No.165 of 1997, dated 20.05.2004, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,07,980/-to the applicants. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; On 08.04.1997, while the applicants husband, Mr. Nagaraj, was constructing Municipality School building, he fell down on the floor and died. The applicant, then filed W.C.No.165 of 1997 for compensation. The same was ordered on 28.08.2000. As per the order, the applicant approached the contractor for collecting the award amount. It was in vain. In this connection, the applicant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Erode Municipality, to collect the money from the contractor. 3. The first opposite party has not deposited the award amount into the credit of W.C.No.165 of 1997, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem. Hence, the applicant sent letters to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 19.06.2001 and 10.02.2004, on the basis of the two letters, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour called both the parties for enquiry. The said enqiry was held on 30.03.2004. The learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the second respondent appeared. The first respondent contractor was called absent. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour framed the issue that the contractor/first respondent has not paid the compensation amount to the applicant as per order passed in W.C.No.165 of 1997 dated 28.08.2000 and so, the question raised as to who should pay the compensation for the aggrieved applicant. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour has come to a conclusion that the first opposite party is a contractor under the second opposite party i.e. the Municipality School, Erode. This was admitted by both the sides. The second opposite party sent a letter on 24.08.2001 stating that the first opposite party, one Mr. K. Balasubramanian was a contractor working under the Municipality between the year 1998-1999, but the address of the contractor is not known to the opposite party. The applicant also went to the last known address and enquired about the first opposite party, but she could not get the first respondent address. Further, she was told by the neighbours that the first opposite party had vacated the house. Under the circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was unable to execute his order passed in W.C.No.165 of 1997, dated 28.08.2000. Further, she was told by the neighbours that the first opposite party had vacated the house. Under the circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was unable to execute his order passed in W.C.No.165 of 1997, dated 28.08.2000. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour passed another order and ordered that the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation to applicant supporting his order, he has mentioned the below mentioned judgments; "In this context it is pertinent to cite the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case between United India Insurance Company Limited v. Workmens Compensation Commissioner and Others ( 1997 ACJ 1028 ) was relied on. In para 13 of the judgment the Court observed as follows; "Now on the question whether the workmens compensation authority had jurisdiction to review it appears that the workmens compensation Commissioner exercises quasi-judicial jurisdiction having all the trappings of the Court procedure whereof has not been elaborately laid down either under the Act or under the Rules. The absence of Specific provisions does not debar such authority from dispensation of justice. The authority, who is passing the order which is enforceable otherwise cannot be said to lack jurisdiction to recall or review its order if the occasion so demands in order to do justice. While dispensing justice or exercising quasi-judicial jurisdiction, unless it has been specifically prohibited or batted, the power to review its own order inheres in the Tribunal or the authority concerned." Similar view has been expressed in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Fids Ali (1995 (572) (All), in which S.R. Singh J. referring to the judgment in the case of Patel Narchi Thakershi v. Pradyumsusinghji Arjunsinghi, ( AIR 1970 SC 1973 ) and S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka ( 1993 (5) JT 27 and various other decisions of different High Courts had held that the "Tribunal having trappings of the -Court is empowered to review its own order" In view of the above judgment, I hold that this Court has power to review its order dated 28.08.2000 in order to dispensation of justice. But, this Court does not once again go to review the main issue of the matter viz., whether the workman is entitled to compensation, because this question was already decided in the order dated 28.08.2000. The modification needs only to the question of liability. But, this Court does not once again go to review the main issue of the matter viz., whether the workman is entitled to compensation, because this question was already decided in the order dated 28.08.2000. The modification needs only to the question of liability. This Court has already held that the first opposite party in the main W.C. i.e. Contractor was liable to pay compensation to the applicant. Since the whereabouts of the first opposite party is not known or find out as described in the above para, this Court ordered that the principle employer i.e. the second opposite party should indemnify the first opposite party for their liability to pay compensation." 4. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour amended his order that the deceased, Nagaraj was employed under the first respondent and the first opposite party is carrying out the construction work as contractor under the second opposite party/Commissioner, Erode Municipality, Erode. The nature of work was school building construction for the said municipality. As such, the second opposite party became principal employer of the deceased. As per Section 12(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ordered the second opposite party to pay compensation to the applicant. The Deputy Commissioner further ordered that the second opposite party is entitled to claim the compensation from the first opposite party. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, further ordered that the second opposite party/Commissioner, Erode Municipality should deposit the award amount of Rs.2,07,980/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of his order, failing which the second opposite party should pay interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment of compensation. 5. The Second opposite party filed his counter statement before the Commissioner and resisted the claim of the applicant and contended that the second opposite party awarded the building contract to the first opposite party as a Principal employer. Further, the first opposite party was the immediate employer of the applicants (deceased) husband, P. Nagaraj. Further, the second opposite party admitted that the accident happened at the time of construction work. The said school construction is under the control of the second opposite party. This is also admitted by the second opposite party. The age and income of the deceased was denied by the second opposite party. Further, the second opposite party admitted that the accident happened at the time of construction work. The said school construction is under the control of the second opposite party. This is also admitted by the second opposite party. The age and income of the deceased was denied by the second opposite party. Further the second opposite party denied the legal heirship of the applicant and her minor son and daughter. As per contract between the first and second opposite party, the applicant is not entitled to get any compensation from the second opposite party. 6. After considering the arguments of the learned appellants counsel and arguments of the counsel for the applicant, the Court is of the view that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour adopted the theory "Pay and Recover". This has been adopted in many high Court cases. Further, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour followed the judgments given in 1) Allahabad High Court, in the case between United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Workmens Compensation Commissioner & Others (referred supra) 2) Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Fids Ali, (referred supra) in which S.R. Singh, Judge referred to the Judgment in the case of Patel Narchi Thakershi vs. Pradyumssinghji Arjunsinghji, ( AIR 1970 SC 1973 ) and S. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka ( 1993(5) JT 27 ). Further, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour followed the proviso under Section 12(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act. As such, this Court is of the view that the compensation award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem in W.C.No.165 of 1997 dated 20.05.2004 is equitable and fair. Hence, the Court confirms the said order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem. The Court directs the second opposite party i.e. the Commissioner, Erode Municipality, Erode District to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.2,07,980/-without interest, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own cost in this appeal.