Judgment : S. MANIKUMAR, J. Being aggrieved by the finding that the Electricity Board, as a principal employer, is liable to pay compensation, the present appeals have been filed. Since all the appeals have arisen out of the same accident, they are taken up together for joint disposal. 2. It is the case of the respondents/claimants, that when deceased, viz., Ramayee, W/o. Veerappan (claimant in W.C. No. 212 of 2002), Kamala, M/o. N. Murugesan (claimant in W.C. No. 39 of 2002), Komalam, W/o. Balakrishnan (claimant in W.C. No. 304 of 2001) and P. Latha, D/o. Lakshmi (claimant in W.C. No. 213 of 2002) were engaged as workmen with Triple ‘ M ‘ Engineering Contractor, Mettur Dam, on 27.1.2001, they sustained injuries, in an accident, which arose out of and in the course of employment, resulting in their death. According to them, while they were collecting coal from a heap of waste coal, it suddenly slided on them and in the result, they died. At the time of accident, they were aged 42, 30, 33 and 19 years respectively and were paid salary of ` 50/-, ` 150/-, ` 150/-and ` 80/-per day respectively. Legal representatives of the deceased have claimed compensation for their death. 3. The second respondent-Contractor, in his counter affidavit, admitted that the accident has occurred arising out of and in the course of employment. He further submitted that a sum of ` 55,000/-has already been paid as part of compensation to the respondents/claimants, in each case separately and since the employees were insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., Mettur Dam, third respondent herein, between 8.1.2001 and 27.1.2001 and that the third respondent-Insurance Company has to indemnify them. 4. The Electricity Board in their counter affidavit has denied their liability to pay compensation. According to them, the agreement between the Board and the Contractor was to remove the coal dust by engaging their own man and in view of Clause 8 of the agreement, dated 16.12.2000, entered into between them and the Contractor, it is the immediate employer, viz., the second respondent herein, who has to pay the compensation. The Board further submitted that the deceased were employees with them and that therefore, the Board is in no way connected with the claim petitions. The Board further submitted that the deceased were employees with them and that therefore, the Board is in no way connected with the claim petitions. Yet the Board, as advised by the Inspector General of Police, Superintendent of Police, Revenue Divisional Officer and Member of Legislative Assembly, the Board arranged for the immediate payment of ` 55,000/-to be paid by the second respondent and also instructed the second respondent-Contractor, to arrange for payment of compensation amount, from the Insurance Company. 5. The third respondent-Insurance Company has denied the manner of accident and they further submitted that only the Electricity Board has to pay compensation. 6. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, legal representatives of the deceased have let in evidence, reiterating the manner of accident. To support their case, they have also marked documents. On behalf of the second respondent-Contractor, an independent witness has been examined as R.W.1. Senior Assistant of the third respondent-Insurance Company has been examined as R.W.2 and R.W.3 is an Investigating Officer. 7. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, found that the accident had occurred arising out of and during the course of employment and having found that the second respondent-Contractor has taken a policy with National Insurance Company, the third respondent herein, for his employees for loading and un-loading of waste coal, on the basis of the wages fixed at ` 40/-, held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay appropriate compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. Upon perusal of the conditions in the letter, dated 20.12.2000 of the Electricity Board, rejected the argument of the Electricity Board and held that the second respondent is not only a contractor of the board, with reference to the purchase of coal, but he is also a contractor for carrying out the work of loading and un-loading, which is a part of the work of the Board. So saying, the Labour Commissioner has held that the appellant-Electricity Board is liable to pay the compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, under Section 12(1) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. There was also a direction to refund of ` 55,000/-paid by the Contractor to respondents/claimants in each case. 8. So saying, the Labour Commissioner has held that the appellant-Electricity Board is liable to pay the compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, under Section 12(1) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. There was also a direction to refund of ` 55,000/-paid by the Contractor to respondents/claimants in each case. 8. Though the respondents/claimants, legal representatives of the deceased have contended that the deceased earned ` 50/-, ` 150/-, ` 150/-and ` 80/-per day respectively, as wages, no documents were filed to prove the same. Triple ‘ M ‘ Contractor and the Electricity Board also did not submit any document in this regard. Therefore, in the absence of any specific document to prove the wages, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at ` 2,040/-as per Section 4(1) (b) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, vide Collector‘s proceedings in Ka.Mu.Aa. 293 of 2000 (M3), dated 4.7.2000, the wages applicable to casual labourers and accordingly, proceeded to quantify the compensation. 9 Insofar as the quantum of compensation to be paid by the third respondent-Insurance Company on the basis of Exhibit R-2, Policy taken for six employees, for whom, a sum of ` 40/-has been fixed as wages, is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, worked out their liability as follows: “Tamil” The claimant is entitled to a compensation of ` 2,29,724/-. 10. Thus, out of the total entitlement of a sum of ` 1,84,060/-, ` 2,01,001/-, ` 2,05,693/-and ` 2,29,724/-determined, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, directed the Insurance Company, third respondent herein to deposit a sum of ` 1,07,094/-, ` 1,83,236/-, ` 1,20,996/-and ` 1,35,132/-respectively and further directed the Electricity Board to pay a sum of ` 70,965/-(` 1,82,060 -` 1,07,094), ` 82,765 (` 2,01,001 -` 1,18,236), ` 84,697/-(` 2,05,693 -` 1,20,996) and ` 94,592/-(` 2,29,724 -` 1,35,132/-) respectively and since the Contractor, the second respondent herein had already paid a sum of ` 55,000/-to the legal representatives of the deceased, a further direction has been granted that out of the total deposit, a sum of ` 55,000/-would be refunded to the second respondent-Contractor. Assailing the correctness of the above said order, the present civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed. 11. Assailing the correctness of the above said order, the present civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed. 11. Record of proceedings shows that this Court, while admitting the appeal, has formulated the following substantial questions of law: “ (A) Whether the appellant board is a principal employer and consequently, liable to pay the compensation awarded? (B) Whether the first respondent contractor/purchaser is not liable to pay the compensation to the deceased? ” 12. Assailing the correctness of the impugned awards, Mr. N. Muthusamy, learned counsel for the appellant-Electricity Board submitted that the deceased were not workmen under the Board and that there was no privity of contract. He further submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour has mis-directed himself in failing to note that the deceased were workmen under the Contractor for the purpose of coal from the Board and that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Board and the deceased. 13. It is his further submission that the finding of the Tribunal that the Board, as the Principal employer, has to pay compensation amount to the deceased is erroneous. It is also his submission that when the second respondent-contractor himself has come forward to pay a sum of ` 55,000/-to each of the family members of the deceased, the Tribunal has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence, let in by the Board in proper perspective, as regards the nature of transaction, viz., the sale of coal dust to the contractor and ought to have held that the Board is not the Principal Employer and consequently, absolved them of their liability to pay compensation under Section 12(1) of the Act. He also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has not properly understood the contents of the letter, dated 29.12.2000, but has given a wrong interpretation to the same. 14. He also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has not properly understood the contents of the letter, dated 29.12.2000, but has given a wrong interpretation to the same. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the legal representatives/respondents submitted that the Labour Commissioner has properly evaluated the evidence and found that the nature of work undertook by Triple ‘ M ‘ Contractors was an activity of the Electricity Board, viz., generation of power using coal and that removal of the waste coal is one of the process involved, during production of electricity and in such circumstances, the provision under Section 12(1) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act is squarely attracted and therefore, the finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, fastening liability on the principal employer, Electricity Board to pay compensation, to the extent not covered under the Insurance Policy, Exhibit P-2, is just and proper. He further submitted that the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the finding and therefore, the contentions to the contra, raised in the civil miscellaneous appeal, stating that the second respondent was only a purchaser of coal and not a contractor to perform the work of removal of coal has to be rejected. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, Triple ‘ M ‘ Contractors, has admitted that the accident occurred during the course of employment. He further submitted that in view of Exhibit P-2, Insurance Policy taken for six employees, the Insurance Company has to indemnify the insured and that a sum of ` 55,000/-paid by the Contractor to each of the family members of the deceased, at the instance of the Inspector General of Police, Superintendent of Police, Revenue Divisional Officer and a Member of Legislative Assembly has to be refunded to him, as per the directions of the Labour Commissioner. It is represented by the Insurance Company that no appeal has been filed against the award. His submission is placed on record. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. Before adverting to the facts and submissions, it is necessary to extract few provisions of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. 17. The word ‘ employer ‘ as defined in Section 2(1) (e) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, reads as follows: “ 2(1)(e). Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. Before adverting to the facts and submissions, it is necessary to extract few provisions of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. 17. The word ‘ employer ‘ as defined in Section 2(1) (e) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, reads as follows: “ 2(1)(e). “ employer ” includes any body of persons 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 a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the workman is working for him. ” 18. Section 12(1) of the abovesaid Act deals with contracting and it reads as follows: “ 12. Contracting: (1) Where any person (hereinafter in this Section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contract with any other person (hereinafter in this Section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the workman under the employer by whom he is immediately employed. ” 19. To appreciate the rival contentions, as regards the work undertaken by Triple M. Engineering Contractors, Mettur, second respondent herein, the contractor engaged for removing coal dust, it is necessary to look into the scope and meaning of the Words, “ Trade ” and “ Business ” used in Section 12 of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. 20. ” 19. To appreciate the rival contentions, as regards the work undertaken by Triple M. Engineering Contractors, Mettur, second respondent herein, the contractor engaged for removing coal dust, it is necessary to look into the scope and meaning of the Words, “ Trade ” and “ Business ” used in Section 12 of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. 20. The main object of Section 12 of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act has been explained in Bhutabhai Angadbhai and Another v. Gujarat Electricity Board and Others, 1987 (1) LLN 156, wherein, the Gujarat High Court, at paragraphs 9 and 10, held as follows: “ the main object of enacting Section 12 of the Act is to secure compensation to the employees who have been engaged through the Contractor by the principal employer for its ordinary part of the business, which, in the ordinary course, the principal employer is supposed to carry out by its own servants. 10. While imposing this liability on the principal employer, sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act has provided that the principal employer will be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor in case the principal employer is required to pay compensation to the employees of the contractor. ” 21. The intention of the legislature in enacting Section 12(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, has been explained by the Division Bench of Mysore High Court in M.R. Mishrikoti v. Muktumsab Hasansab Asoti 1973 L.I.C. 997 wherein, at paragraph 6, it is held as follows: “ In the aforesaid provision the term ‘ employer ‘ is used in contradistinction to the injured workman or the dependent of a deceased workman who had made an application for compensation and who can also appeal from an order of the Commissioner if he feels aggrieved by such order. The intention of the Legislature in enacting that proviso appears to be that the injured workman or the dependent of a deceased workman who has been awarded compensation by the Commissioner, should not be put to any difficulty in realising such amount of compensation on account of any recalcitrance of the employer or on account of the vicissitudes of his (the employer ‘ s) financial position after he prefers an appeal. This object of the Legislature will be defeated, if we accept the interpretation put forward by Mr. This object of the Legislature will be defeated, if we accept the interpretation put forward by Mr. Joshi and hold that the proviso is applicable only to an appellant who admits that he was such employer and not to an appellant who disputes the finding by the Commissioner that he was such employer. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Joshi that the appellant could file the appeal without depositing the amount of compensation as he was denying his having been the employer in relation to the deceased workman. ” 22. In Public Works Department v. Commr., Workmen Compensation 1981 Lab.LC. 493, two persons working as labourers under a contractor employed by PWD for construction of a road, met with a fatal accident. Legal representatives claimed compensation from the Government, as well as from the Contractor. Two separate claim applications, i.e., one by the second respondent therein, father of the deceased and another by mother, were made. The Labour Commissioner disposed of both the applications by a common order, awarding compensation to the claimants, to be paid by PWD and the contractor in equal shares. Aggrieved by the same, the PWD preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, contending inter alia that the appellant cannot be said to be the Principal employer of the deceased labourers, within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act and the imposition of penalty was also put to challenge. While explaining the difference between “ trade ” and “ business ” , the Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, at paragraph 4, held that, “ 4. Unlike the word “ trade ” which merely connotes commercial activity, the word “ business ” is of much wider import and may be used in different contexts in different senses. Used in one context, it may imply a particular occupation or employment to earn livelihood or gain, whereas used in a different context it may mean an activity which engages time, attention, or labour as a principal serious concern or interest. Its connotation may thus vary with the varying contexts in which it is used. In taxing statutes for instance, the word “ business ” will always denote an activity carried out with the object of earning profit, ‘ though the same may not be true when used in relation to other activities. Its connotation may thus vary with the varying contexts in which it is used. In taxing statutes for instance, the word “ business ” will always denote an activity carried out with the object of earning profit, ‘ though the same may not be true when used in relation to other activities. Used in broader sense, a person building his residential house or a Government constructing a road, may well be said to do business insofar as the said activity engages his or its time, attention or labour as principal servious concern or interest. ” 23. As regards object behind Section 12 of the Act, at paragraph 7, the Division Bench further held that, “ 7. The only object behind the provisions of Section 12 appears to be to secure speedy payment of compensation resulting from injuries to a workman. The legislature intended to make doubly sure payment of such compensation to the workman, or to his dependants in the event of his death, as it could not exclude the possibility of the contractor being in some cases a man of straw, whose straitened circumstances might jeopardise the changes of recovery of such compensation. If, therefore, a restricted meaning is given to the word, “ business ” so as to imply an activity with the object behind Section 12 is likely to be defeated. Not only to speak of the Government performing its various functions of a welfare State, even many other persons may have to be kept out of the purview of Section 12 by assigning such a limited meaning to the word, “ business ” occurring in it. Such an interpretation would absolve from liability to pay compensation even a person who would appoint a contractor for building his residential house, as building one ‘ s residential house cannot be said to have the object of earning profit or gain behind it. It cannot, as such, be said to partake of “ business or trade ” in commercial sense. Merely because the word “ business ” is clubbed with the word “ trade ” in Section 12 , it should not be inferred that it has been used in simple commercial sense. Both these words have to be read disjunctively and not conjunctively. Merely because the word “ business ” is clubbed with the word “ trade ” in Section 12 , it should not be inferred that it has been used in simple commercial sense. Both these words have to be read disjunctively and not conjunctively. Similarly, the doctrine of immunity attached to sovereign acts of State cannot be extended to acts like constructing roads or bridges, as such acts are not of such a nature as cannot be done by a private person. Viewed thus, the word “ business ” occurring in Section 12 has to be given an extended meaning, so as to include even an activity which engages time, attention, or labour as a principal serious concern or interest of the Government or an individual without an element of profit in it. It is one of the meanings given to the word “ business ” in dictionary. (See WEBSTER ‘ S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, Vol. 1. Ed. 1926). Construction of roads being one of the principal concerns of the Public Works Department of the Government inviting its serious attention, it is “ business ” within the meaning of Section 12 and the appellant was thus the principal employer vis-à-vis the deceased labourers. ” 24. While explaining the scope of Section 12 of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, the Kerala High Court in Vijayaraghavan v. Velu 1973 Lab IC 1520, has laid down the following four essential conditions to be satisfied, for application of Section 12 of the Act, “ (i) That the person (called the principal) is carrying on a trade or business and, in the course of or for the purpose of that trade of business, engages a contractor to execute the work. (ii) That work is ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the principal. (iii) The accident which gives rise to the liability for compensation must have occurred on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken, or usually undertakes to execute the work or which is in his control or management. (iv) The accident must have occurred while the workman was in the course of his employment in executing the work. ” 25. (iv) The accident must have occurred while the workman was in the course of his employment in executing the work. ” 25. While considering whether the construction of “ cooli-lines ” for the estate workers, is a part of business of tea estate or not, and the applicability of Section 12 of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, in Supt., Lockhart Estate v. Kaliappan1976-I-LLJ-354 , held as follows at p. 357 of LLJ: “ 4. .....It is necessary, in order to render a person, who has not directly employed the workman or workmen concerned, liable to answer the claim for compensation, to show the existence of various requisites which would attract Section 12 (i) and one of them is that the principal employer has, in the course or for the purpose of his trade or business contracted with any other person for the ‘ execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal. It is said that the trade or business of the principal here is that of producing tea in the Estate, manufacturing it, preparing if for the market and marketing it and any work which is ordinarily part of this work could alone fall within the scope of Section 12 (i). Consequently, it is said that if the workmen were engaged in such activities as construction of coolilines when they met with the accident, even the purposes of the Estate, that would not enable a claim to be made against the Estate as the principal employer. This contention calls for examination of what the trade or business of the principal is. The term “ trade ” or “ business ” would not have been used in Section 12 (i) to mean the same, though in certain contexts they may bear the same meaning. The very fact that both these terms are employed in the Section would indicate that they connote different ideas and they do not cover the identical field, “ trade ” as generally understood means activities of buying and selling and the business which is related to such buying and selling whereas “ business ” is a term of such larger import. All categories of business need not be trade, since there are many categories in which there is no element of trade at all. Taking for instance, the case of a tea estate, the trade may refer to the activities of buying and selling, buying for the purpose of the business of the tea estate and selling the products of the tea estate. Business is a concept which takes in all the activities including the running of a hospital for the Estate, the maintenance of cooli-lines, providing such amenities as are agreed to between the management and the labour and all other incidental activities. It goes without saying that in the assessment to income-tax, if the Estate is to claim deduction for expenses of business, expenses such as those incurred for the purpose of running a hospital for the benefit of the Estate will be claimed as business expenses though they are not to be treated as trading expenses. 5. In a different context, the question of the distinction between business and trade was considered by the Chancery Division in the decision in In re A Debtor 1927 (1) Cha 97. SIR SCRUTTON, L.J., said in that case: “ The word ‘ trade ‘ is often confined to buying and selling commodities. Where to draw the line between what is a profession and what is a trade is a matter which it is not possible to deal with by any general definition. ‘ Business ‘ is a much wider term than ‘ trade ‘ . The word ‘ business ‘ at least covers a continuous occupation involving liabilities to others. ” We cannot agree with the counsel for the principal employer that the construction of cooli-lines in the estate is not part of the business of the principal. Section 15 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 obliges every employer to provide and maintain for every worker and his family residing in the plantation necessary housing accommodation. It is a statutory duty. In discharge of such duty, the employer may himself construct houses for residence of the workers or such work may be done through a contractor. If he does such work by himself, it cannot be said that it is not part of his business, for, the business is not concerned merely with growing tea and selling it. In discharge of such duty, the employer may himself construct houses for residence of the workers or such work may be done through a contractor. If he does such work by himself, it cannot be said that it is not part of his business, for, the business is not concerned merely with growing tea and selling it. Tea can be grown only in the tea estate and a tea estate could be run only in accordance with certain regulations and one of the regulations is that quarters are to be provided. Even if there be no statutory obligation if it is the usual requirement of the business or a term of the employment, then work such as construction of cooli-lines would be part of the business of the employer........... ” 26. As regards the option of the claimant to institute proceedings for compensation against the principal employer or the contractor, or against both in the same proceedings and the provision under Section 12(2) for indemnification, the Allahabad High Court in Sardar Sewa Singh v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.1980 ACJ 309, at paragraph 3, has explained the purpose and scope of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as follows: “ Chapter II of the Act captioned ‘ Workmen‘s Compensation ‘ deals with the question of compensation claimed by a workman. Ordinarily such claims are disposed of under the provisions of Section 3 to 5. The scheme of the Act is that the ‘ employer ‘ as defined in Section 2 (c) should be liable in the manner mentioned in Section 3 . In view, however, of the vastly increasing ramifications of industrial establishments and the multiplicity of immediate and indirect or remote employees which such process inevitably involves the legislature has inserted a provision in the Act which may relieve a workman of the difficulty of ascertaining with precision as to who should be deemed to be the actual employer liable for compensation under the Act. Section 12 , therefore, provides for a case where we have several tiers of employers or petty employers. Section 12 , therefore, provides for a case where we have several tiers of employers or petty employers. It is a matter of common knowledge that in big industrial establishments important branches of undertakings are entrusted to contractors, who may in their turn have to employ other petty contractors working under their direction and a workman may be actually employed by one of these aforesaid persons and in such an elaborate hierarchy there is, may be no direct privity of contract between the principal and the workman in the last analysis. The workman has for all practical purposes to deal comes to lodging a legal claim for compensation on account of an accident he is concerned with the principal employer and not the immediate employer qua the workman. This is an enabling provision for the benefit of the workman and enacted with the clear objective that the workman should not be hampered by technicalities or practical difficulties of deciphering the correct employer. A pragmatic method has thus been devised for fixing the liability of the principal employer and thereby affording speedy relief to the workman for payment of compensation on account of the accident, though the principal has been invested with the right of indemnifying himself from the contractor who may have employed the workman and may have been responsible for immediately taking work from him. ” 27. In Koodalingam v. Superintending Engineer, PWD 1995-I-LLJ-334 (Ker) : 1995 ACJ 282, applications were filed under the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation for the death of workmen admittedly employed by the second opposite party, a contractor, engaged by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, the first opposite party, for the purpose of getting a project undertaken by the Public Works Department, in the course of its business. The main project undertaken by the PWD Department was “ Kuttiadi Irrigation Project ” . The work that was entrusted to the contractor by the PWD Department, was construction of a canal forming part of the main project. The deceased were engaged in the work of removal of earth from the work site. When the land at a high elevation slided down, the workmen got buried alive and breathed their last under the debris. Legal representatives of the deceased made claims. Though notice was served, the contractor remained ex parte. The deceased were engaged in the work of removal of earth from the work site. When the land at a high elevation slided down, the workmen got buried alive and breathed their last under the debris. Legal representatives of the deceased made claims. Though notice was served, the contractor remained ex parte. The Superintending Engineer contended that the deceased were employed by the second opposite party, viz., the Contractor, in the construction of irrigation canal for the main project and that they died as a result of the accident, which arose out of and in the course of their employment, at the work site. The Superintending Engineer further stated that PWD was not liable to pay compensation, as claimed in the applications, since the workmen were employed by the Contractor, who was entrusted with the execution of the work and as per the terms and conditions, contained in the agreement, a provision has been made that the contractor alone would be responsible for the protection of the workmen and that therefore, payment of compensation should be made only , by the Contractor. Placing reliance on Clause 15 of the Exhibit R-1, agreement entered into between the Department and the Contractor, where, the Contractor had expressly undertook the responsibility to pay compensation under the Act, liability was fastened on the contractor to pay compensation to the deceased-workmen, squarely rests on the Contractor. When the correctness of the above order was challenged, the Kerala High Court, finding that the work, for which, the deceased workmen were engaged and in the course of which, they lost their lives, was the work of construction of irrigation canals, as part of “ Kuttiadi Irrigation Project ” , undertaken by PWD of the State Government, as certainly one of the principal concern of PWD of the State Government and holding that such work in question can only be treated as part of the business of the first opposite party, viz., the Superintending Engineer, PWD, a Division Bench of Kerala High Court, at paragraphs 9 and 10 held as follows at p. 337 of LLJ: “ 9. If Section 12 of the Act is applicable to the facts of the case on hand there cannot be any doubt about the legal position that the first opposite party is also liable to pay compensation payable under the Act to the workmen even if the workmen were engaged actually only by the second opposite party. As such, the Court ought to have made the first opposite party also liable to pay the compensation applying the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the Court while passing the impugned order has clearly committed an error in not noting the provisions of Section 12 and giving effect to it by making the first opposite party also liable to pay the compensation determined in the case. 10. Section 12(2) in unambiguous terms confers a right on the principal who is made liable to pay compensation under the said Section to get himself indemnified by the contractor. As such, we would hold that the first opposite party as principal will be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor by virtue of Section 12(2) of the Act and to recover the amount of compensation, if any paid to the workmen, from the second opposite party in execution of the orders passed in the two cases itself. We say so because in this case the first opposite party has specifically contended that as per Clause 15 of the agreement entered into between the department the contractor, the contractor has expressly undertaken the responsibility for payment of compensation under the Act and the Court as per the impugned order has accepted the above contention and held the second opposite party exclusively liable to pay the compensation found due. ” 28. As regards the contention of the Government that, in the light of the contract entered into between the two opposite parties, regarding the liability to pay compensation under the Workmen‘s Compensation Act and that Section 12 cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, to fasten liability for payment of compensation under the Act on the Department, the Division Bench of Kerala High Court, at paragraph 11, further held as follows at p. 338 of LLJ: “ 11. … The avowed object with which Section 12 was enacted as part of the Act as seen from the Report of the Select Committee is to enable the workmen or the dependents of the workmen to proceed against the contractor or against the principal or both and to make the contractor liable to indemnify the principal in all cases in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. The Report of the Select Committee would also show that while finalising the provision the Committee has eliminated the provision which in the Bill as introduced exempted the Government and local authorities from liability imposed by this clause. The Committee has observed that these authorities are liable just in the same manner as private individuals. If these were the avowed objects with which Section 12 of the Act was incorporated in an enactment which itself is a beneficial legislation intended to confer benefits on the workmen, we are of the view that the provisions in Section 12(1) would apply notwithstanding the agreement or contract entered into between the principal and contractor regarding their liability for payment of compensation under the Act. So long as the Section has not been made specifically subject to any contract to the contrary, the Section would have application in all cases where the conditions specified in the Section are satisfied. The fact that no non obstante provision is used in the Section may not be a sufficient reason to exclude the application of the Section to cases where the conditions are satisfied. At best, agreements or contracts entered into between the principal and contractor can govern only their inter se rights and liabilities and cannot affect the right of the workmen or their dependents to get compensation either from the principal or from the contractor at their option. Right to get indemnified from the contractor specifically conferred on the principal under Section 12(2) of the Act sufficiently safeguards the interest of the principal who has entrusted the work to the contractor stipulating the liability under the Act. Accordingly, we would reject the contention of the learned Government Pleader. ” 29. In Koli Mansukh Rana v. Patel Natha Ramji 1995-III-LLJ (Suppl.)-669, a workman claimed compensation for personal accidental injuries sustained by him, when he was attending sugar-cane crushing machine. Due to the accident, his right hand was crushed in the said crushing machine. Accordingly, we would reject the contention of the learned Government Pleader. ” 29. In Koli Mansukh Rana v. Patel Natha Ramji 1995-III-LLJ (Suppl.)-669, a workman claimed compensation for personal accidental injuries sustained by him, when he was attending sugar-cane crushing machine. Due to the accident, his right hand was crushed in the said crushing machine. Despite notice being served, the employer did not pay compensation. Before the Labour Commissioner, the employer appeared and resisted the application for compensation, contending inter alia that the injured was not a workman, as defined under the Act. However, he admitted the factum of the accident. According to him, the injured, being a relative of one Mr. Bachu Nanji, who was his contractor, had unauthorisedly tampered with the crushing machine and, therefore, not entitled to any compensation. On the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner held that the injured/workman was not entitled to compensation, under Section 3 of the Act. It was an admitted fact that the opponent/employer had engaged the said Mr. Bachu Nanji and Mr. Jayanti Soma, as his contractors for cutting, collecting and crushing sugar-canes in his field. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement that he had given the contract to the abovesaid persons for crushing sugarcane. Though the Labour Commissioner believed that they were the contractors of the 1st opposite party-Mr. Patel Natha Ramji and also held that the injured was a ‘ workman ‘ as defined under the Act, however dismissed the claim petition, stating that the injured was not a workman of first opposite party therein. In the appeal to the High Court, one of the substantial questions of law raised was, as to whether the first opposite party, Mr. Patel Natha Ramji, who had engaged Mr. Bachu Nanji and Mr. Jayanti Soma, as his contractors for preparing sugarcane juice by crushing sugarcane, was the employer and who should pay compensation. Admittedly, the 1st opposite party, Mr. Patel Natha Ramji was doing business of Jaggery and for preparation of Jaggery, he had engaged one Mr. Nazirbhai Abdul as his contractor. In addition to that, he had also engaged the said Mr. Bachu Nanji and Mr. Jayanti Soma, as his contractors, for cutting, collecting and crushing sugar-canes, which was a part of the process for making jaggery. Patel Natha Ramji was doing business of Jaggery and for preparation of Jaggery, he had engaged one Mr. Nazirbhai Abdul as his contractor. In addition to that, he had also engaged the said Mr. Bachu Nanji and Mr. Jayanti Soma, as his contractors, for cutting, collecting and crushing sugar-canes, which was a part of the process for making jaggery. As per the evidence, the abovesaid persons were to cut, collect and crush sugarcanes, so as to make jaggery. In the light of the above said evidence and facts, the Gujarat High Court, held that it was a part of the process of preparing jaggery, which was the business of the original opposite party and therefore, held that the provision under Section 12 of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, would be attracted, which prescribes that a person who is engaging a contractor for the execution of a contract work relating to his trade or business, would be the principal employer and that he would be equally liable for payment of compensation to a workman for personal injuries, under Section 3 of the Act. 30. While explaining the difference between the words ‘ trade ‘ and ‘ business ‘ , the Gujarat High Court further held that, “ The word ‘ trade ‘ means commercial activity. But, the word ‘ business ‘ has much wider connotation and covers activities which may not be commercial. ” After extracting the four essential conditions, that are required to be satisfied, as stated supra, in the earlier paragraph of this Court ‘ s judgment, the Gujarat High Court held that if all the four essential conditions are satisfied, then the principal employer can be made liable under Section 12 of the Act for payment of compensation under Section 3 of the Act. While explaining the object of Section 12 of the Act, the Court further held that, “ The very object behind the provisions of Section 12 of the Act is to secure compensation to the workman who cannot fight out his battle for compensation by a speedy process. A person who employs others to advance his own business and interest is expected to provide a surer basis for payment of the injured workman than the intermediary, who may often turn out to be a man of straw, from whom compensation may not be available. A person who employs others to advance his own business and interest is expected to provide a surer basis for payment of the injured workman than the intermediary, who may often turn out to be a man of straw, from whom compensation may not be available. This is the purpose for which the claimant is given the option under Section 12(3) of the Act to claim the compensation either from the principal or from the employer. ” 31. In Administrator of Indore Nagar Palika Nigam v. Rannsingh 1999-III-LLJ (Supp)-340, one Suratiya was employed as a labourer by the contractors and while working as labourer, he fell down from the scaffolding due to which, he received injuries and succumbed to death. Widow of the deceased claimed compensation, against the Contractors and the Municipal Corporation, Indore. The Labour Court, allowed the application, holding that the contractors and the Municipal Corporation were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. It was also held that the Municipal Corporation was entitled to be indemnified by the contractor. The contractors have not filed any appeal. However, the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation preferred an appeal, contending inter alia that though the Corporation had given a contract for the construction of a badminton hall to the contractor, they could not be held liable to pay compensation, as principal employer, in view of the fact that the work of construction of the badminton hall was not ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the Municipal Corporation. It was further contended that the Corporation actually makes the stadium or other sports facilities available to the citizens of Indore, as a welfare scheme and not for profit or gain. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Municipal Board, Almora v. Jasod Singh AIR 1960 All 468 , wherein, it was held that when the Municipal Board entrusted the electrification work of the town to the State and during the course of employment, if an employee of the State suffers injuries, State alone is liable to pay compensation and not the Board because, the execution of electrical projects is not ordinarily the business of the Board. Reliance was also placed in New India Tannia Ltd. v. Aurora Singh Mojhi 1957-II-LLJ-440 (Cal.), wherein, it has been held that if the work has been entrusted to a contractor to do a particular job, by the company which is not ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the principal company, then the company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation, as a principal. 32. On the other hand, the respondents/legal representatives, placed submissions to sustain the award, by referring to a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Vimalaben Vashrambhai v. Gujarat Housing Board (1975 ACJ 84), wherein it has been held that when a contractor of the Gujarat Housing Board was entrusted with the job of constructing a building of the Board and a labourer employed by the contractor falls from a height resulting in death, then the Housing Board is liable to pay the compensation to the labourer employed by the contractor being the principal. Though an argument was advanced, stating that the work of the construction was not a ordinary part of business of the Corporation, undertaken without a motive to earn profit out of it, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, rejecting the said contention, held that the work of construction of a stadium or sport facilities was definitely an (sic) ordinary part of the business of the Corporation and in such circumstances, the appellant therein was held liable to pay compensation. While arriving at the above said conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took note of the decision of the Gujarat High Court, in Bai Mani v. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Division Six, Baroda 1986-II-LLJ-426, wherein, construction of a canal was held to be ordinarily a part of the business of the State and, therefore, the State was held liable to pay the compensation to the labourer of the contractor as principal. The decision made in Sarjerao Unkar Jadhav v. Gurindar Singh 1992-I-LLJ-156, was also pressed into service, wherein, it has been held that when the Electricity Board gave a contract for painting the electric poles and the workman employed by the contractor was injured, while painting the poles, it was ordinarily a part of business of the principal, that is, of the Electricity Board and, therefore, the principal was held liable for compensation. 33. 33. In Balu Rama Patil v. Ramesh Shankar Rao II (2005) ACC 609 (DB), while considering as to whether the driver of the car, which was not used as a commercial vehicle, at the time of accident, nor was it used for a business purpose, would fall under the definition of “ workman ” as defined under Section 2(1) (n) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, for the purpose of claiming compensation, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that, “ Thus, in order to exclude a person from the category of a workman entitled to compensation under the Act, it has to be shown that he is a casual employee and further that he is not engaged in the trade or business of the employer. ” 34. In the above reported case, it was found that as the driver engaged was a paid driver, not employed as a casual worker, but on regular basis and having regard to the fact that he cumulatively satisfied the conditions that the said driver was a person, other than, whose employment was of casual nature and was employed for the purpose of trade or business, the Division Bench held that the Labour Commissioner has failed to consider the abovesaid aspect and accordingly, set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for determination of the quantum of compensation. 35. At the risk of repetition, the details of the decision in Sarjerao Unkar Jadhav v. Gurindar Singh (supra), is reproduced. In this case, the appellant-workman was required to climb the ladder-cart to do painting work. A claim was made against the Electricity Board and the Contractor. The Commissioner of Labour exonerated the Electricity Board and held that the Contractor was liable to pay compensation. An appeal was preferred by the Contractor and Section 12(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, was pressed into service. A claim was made against the Electricity Board and the Contractor. The Commissioner of Labour exonerated the Electricity Board and held that the Contractor was liable to pay compensation. An appeal was preferred by the Contractor and Section 12(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, was pressed into service. While considering as to whether painting electric poles is also a work which is ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the Board, the Bombay High Court, broadly laid down the following principles that at p. 159 of LLJ: “ the safer test would be that if it is ordinarily a part of business of the principal to execute certain work, then ordinarily he will do that work by his own servants and he cannot escape the liability for accident that takes place merely because he has engaged a contractor. Now, in the present case, the trade or business of respondent No. 2 is to supply electricity. One cannot supply electricity without having electric poles. Electric poles are not one or two in number. They are hundreds and thousands having regard to the area of operation of respondent No. 2. In Bombay climate, the poles are likely to get rusted unless painted frequently. It will thus be an ordinary part of respondent No. 2 ‘ s business to paint the poles if it is interested in supplying electricity continuously and properly. It is for this reason that I am inclined to hold that the contractor was engaged not only for the purpose of respondent No. 2 ‘ s trade or business, but the activity in which the workman was engaged was ordinarily a part of its trade or business. Accordingly, I further hold respondent No. 2 responsible and liable for compensation under Section 12(1) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. ” 36. In yet another decision in Malankara Rubber & Produce Co. v. Hameed 2000-II-LLJ-630 (Ker) : 2001 (4) L.L.N. 373, while considering the claim of the parents of the workman, who died in the accident, while erecting a structure close to the existing factory, the Division Bench held as follows at p. 634 of LLJ: “ 9. We find no merit in the contention raised by the appellant that the appellant company cannot be treated as the principal employer. The word business used in Section 12 has various shades of meanings. We find no merit in the contention raised by the appellant that the appellant company cannot be treated as the principal employer. The word business used in Section 12 has various shades of meanings. The work undertaken by the contractor was in respect of the expansion of the factory building in the premises to the appellant. The expansion of the factory building was a usual requirement incidental for the expansion of the business. The expansion of the factory being connected with the expansion of the business of the employer would have been done by himself or under his supervision if he had not contracted with another. As the work undertaken by the contractor was in respect of the expansion of the business of the company, and the accident occurred in the factory premises under the control of the appellant, where its business was carried on the appellant was the principal employer liable to compensate the death of the worker, viz., Basheer under Section 12(1) of the Act. The Workmen‘s Compensation Court was fully justified in holding that the appellant was the principal employer and that Section 12 of the Act was applicable. Hence, this appeal has only to be dismissed and the order of the Workmen‘s Compensation Court to upheld. ” 37. While considering a claim for the death of a workman, while whitewashing the walls of the respondent-university, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bala Mallamma v. Registrar, Osmania University 2001-II-LLJ-268 (AP) : 2001 (2) L.L.N. 890, held as follows at p. 271 of LLJ: “ 15. This judgment reiterates a principle of interpretation and the principle is that the meaning of the work must be gleaned from the context in which it is used. Meaning assigned to a word in a particular Act may mean one thing and the meaning of the same term may give a different meaning when used in a different Act. Therefore, the word “ trade or business ” as used in this Act have to be understood in the context in which this Act has been enacted. Basically, the act has been enacted to provide compensation to the workers suffering during the course of employment. Therefore, the word “ trade or business ” as used in this Act have to be understood in the context in which this Act has been enacted. Basically, the act has been enacted to provide compensation to the workers suffering during the course of employment. It is also the purpose of the Act that they should get speedy remedies and it appears that the intention of enacting the Section 12 of the Act was only to ensure that compensation is paid by the principal expeditiously and if this purpose of the Act and the provisions are kept in mind, then the word “ trade ” or “ business ” may not have the same meaning which it would have, for instance, when used in interpreting a taxing statute. If the plea of the University is accepted that they are engaged in imparting education, conducting examinations and conferring degrees only and cannot be termed to be doing any business or trade and hence they are not liable to pay compensation, then any person engaged for similar activity by any Government department, any University, any hospital, if faced with an accident, would not be able to get compensation in terms of Section 12 of the Act although such a person would be a workman under the Act. Similarly, if an individual who wants to construct a residential house of his own engages a person for construction of the house and if such a person faces an accident during the course of the building of the house, he would be remediless under the Act. Even otherwise, the normal activity of the University is imparting education, conducting of examinations and conferring degrees, this they cannot do without having proper buildings....... ” 38. In the Assistant Director of Horticulture Division, Anna Pannai, and Another v. Andi and Another 1997-II-LLJ-568 : 1998 ACJ 48 , the claimant ‘ s daughter was employed by the Contractor. He undertook the work through another person, for digging a well. While she was working, suddenly, she met with an accident due to the fall of a stone on her head, which further caused her to fall into the deep well. Even though she was lifted by other co-workers and rushed to hospital, she was pronounced dead. Father of the deceased claimed compensation. While she was working, suddenly, she met with an accident due to the fall of a stone on her head, which further caused her to fall into the deep well. Even though she was lifted by other co-workers and rushed to hospital, she was pronounced dead. Father of the deceased claimed compensation. The third respondent therein opposed the claim, contending inter alia that the second respondent wanted to dig a well at Anna Pannai. Tenders were invited for that work and the tender submitted by Anna Labour Contract Cooperative Society was accepted and that the work was also entrusted to the said Society. It was further contended that an agreement was entered into between the Society and third respondent. According to third respondent, he was only an authority to supervise and control the construction work and to maintain the efficiency and quality of the work. The work was entrusted to the Society for actual execution and therefore, it was for the Society to employ its own labourers for execution of the said work. It was also contended that the third respondent-Contractor never engaged the deceased as a labourer, nor wages were paid by the Department. 39. While considering as to whether the work of digging a well, that was entrusted to the Contractor was a trade or business and whether the third respondent would be liable to pay compensation in terms of Section 12(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, this Court, at paragraph 9, held as follows: “ 9. In a Welfare State, any activity by the State for the welfare of the people, even though cannot be termed as ‘ trade ‘ , it will come within the definition of ‘ business‘. In Bai Mani and Others v. Executive Engineer (supra) the Gujarat High Court had occasion to consider a case where the State Government through its Public Works Department, was doing excavation and construction work for the purpose of constructing a dam. In that case, the Court said that the word ‘ business ‘ has a much wider meaning and covers activities which may not be commercial and may include the construction work carried out by the Public Works Department. In that case, the learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court followed an earlier decision of the same Court Executive Engineer, Kadana Dam and Another v. Phebiben and Others 1977 A.C.J. 204. In that case, the learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court followed an earlier decision of the same Court Executive Engineer, Kadana Dam and Another v. Phebiben and Others 1977 A.C.J. 204. That was also a case of construction of a dam by P.W.D. through a contractor. In that case, the Court said that the word ‘ trade ‘ means ‘ commercial activity ‘ . But, the word ‘ business ‘ has a much wider connotation and covers activities which may not be commercial and may include the construction work carried out by the Public Works Department. Trade and business cover not only commercial activity but also many other activities which will he covered by the term ‘ business ‘ . In the earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court which was followed by the same Court in 1987 1 ACC 76, it was said that, ‘ Construction of all sorts of work indisputably is the ordinary activity of the Public Works Department and one such ordinary activity was sought to be carried out through tne contractor ‘ . In this case, due to drought conditions, naturally, construction of wells and deepening of existing wells is one of ordinary work of P.W.D., one of the State Departments and therefore, it could be considered as a ‘ business ‘ coming within the scope of Section 12 of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. In that view of the matter, the finding of the authority that all the respondents are liable to compensate the claimant is justified. ” 40. In Executive Engineer, Kadana Dam and Another v. Phebiben and Others 1977 ACJ 204, a workman was employed by a contractor for construction of a dam. PWD has undertaken the work and entrusted the same to a contractor. When a claim for compensation was made, Public Works Department resisted the claim, contending inter alia that he was not a workman engaged by them and it is the contractor, the immediate employer, who has to pay the compensation. Adjudging the issue with reference to the words, “ trade ” or “ business ” , the activity undertaken by the department, the Gujarat High Court, at paragraphs 18, 19 and 22 of the judgment, held as follows: “ 18. In this case, the Government of Gujarat, through its Public Works Department had undertaken the Kadana Dam Project. Adjudging the issue with reference to the words, “ trade ” or “ business ” , the activity undertaken by the department, the Gujarat High Court, at paragraphs 18, 19 and 22 of the judgment, held as follows: “ 18. In this case, the Government of Gujarat, through its Public Works Department had undertaken the Kadana Dam Project. Once construction of the dam project was undertaken by the Government of Gujarat through its Public Works Department, it became the business activity of the State Government (vide Section 2(2) ). In order to execute this work, the State Government employed a contractor, namely, Cementation Company Limited. That company is indisputably the contractor. So the first two conditions are satisfied. 19. The controversy is that the work which was given to the contractor was not ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal and, therefore, the third condition for invoking application of Section 12 is not satisfied. There is absolutely no substance in this contention. In view of the provision contained in sub-section (2) of Section 2 . Once the power to build a dam across the river was sought to be exercised by undertaking the Kadana Dam Project, to be executed through the Public Works Department, the activity connected with the execution of the Kadana Dam Project, became the business or trade activity of the State Government and the activity of the Public Works Department is ordinarily the activity of putting up construction, may be roads, may be canals, may be embankment, may be dam. Once it became the activity of the State Government, and in order to carry out this activity, it engaged a contractor, the contractor was engaged for execution of the work, which was ordinarily part of the business activity of the principal. The principal wanted to build a dam, and it is the business activity of the principal. The principal employed a contractor to carry out part of the construction of the dam work which was business activity of the principal. It does appear that the principal, namely/the State Government through its Public Works Department undertook the activity of construction of a dam in exercise of its sovereign function. But, once it decided to perform the duty of carrying out its sovereign function. It does appear that the principal, namely/the State Government through its Public Works Department undertook the activity of construction of a dam in exercise of its sovereign function. But, once it decided to perform the duty of carrying out its sovereign function. But, once it decided to perform the duty of carrying out its sovereign function, it became the business activity of the Public Works Department through which it decided to construct the dam, and Section 2(2) would be attracted. It is universally known that the Public Works Department entrusts its business activity or part of it to a contractor. 22. Having, therefore, examined the case both on principle and authority, it is crystal clear that once the State Government decided to exercise its power of building a dam, through its Public Works Department, acting on behalf of the Government, activity for construction of the dam would be its trade or business activity but more especially business activity. It is not necessary in this connection to cut down the meaning of ‘ business ‘ by referring to ‘ trade ‘ which precedes it, as was sought to be urged. Both the words have been advisedly used in their wider connotation, and once construction of dam becomes business activity of the Public Works Department, as it is undertaken through that (Department, one has to ascertain what are the ordinary activities of the Public Works Department. Construction of all sorts of work indisputably is the ordinary activity of the Public Works Department and once such ordinary activity was sought to be carried out through the contractor. Therefore, all conditions for attracting Section 23 are satisfied and the Executive Engineer has been rightly held liable for the compensation claimed by the original applicants. ” 41. Now reverting back to the facts of the case on hand, the dispute is whether removal of coal ash is ordinarily a part of a work to be executed by the Electricity Board and entrustment of the same to a Contractor, would absolve the liability of the Board to pay compensation. There cannot be any dispute that generation and supply of power is a trade or business of the Electricity Board and not the work of the Contractor. There cannot be any dispute that generation and supply of power is a trade or business of the Electricity Board and not the work of the Contractor. For the abovesaid purpose, it should be considered as to whether the Board would ordinarily engage workmen for removal of coal ash, had it not been entrusted to a immediate employer, the Contractor. 42. Having regard to the functions of the Board stated, certainly they cannot contend that removal of coal is not necessary, when generation of power is done using coal. Therefore, to attract the liability of the principal employer to pay compensation and get it indemnified from the immediate employer, viz., the Contractor, the activity undertaken by the Board through its contractor for the purpose of generation of electricity and in particular, removal of coal, has to be considered as part of the business undertaken by the Principal Employer, viz., the Electricity Board. Even assuming that the workmen had not been engaged through a Contractor, ordinarily the work of removal of coal, would have to be necessarily done by the Board, as removal of coal, dust and using coal have to be done simultaneously, for generation of power and in that context, it cannot be said that, but for the entrustment of the work to a contractor, the Board would not have engaged their employees to do the abovesaid work. To attract Section 12 of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, not only the contract must have been in the course of trade or business, but the work entrusted to him must relate to the trade or business. 43. To attract Section 12 of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, not only the contract must have been in the course of trade or business, but the work entrusted to him must relate to the trade or business. 43. Applicability of Section 12(1) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, depends upon the following conditions, (1) Whether the person called the principal employer is carrying on trade or business and in the course of or for the purpose of that trade or business, engaged a contractor to execute any work, (2) whether the work entrusted to the contractor is ordinarily a part of trade or business of the principal, (3) whether the accident which give rise, to the liability for compensation has occurred in or about the premises, on which, the principal had undertaken or ordinarily undertakes to execute the work, wherein he controls the employees of the contractor, (4) whether the accident has taken place during the course of and arising out of employment in executing the work, which is ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the principal employer and (5) Whether the workman died during the course of employment. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, makes it obligatory on the principal employer to pay compensation to the accident victim, the moment it is proved that the work executed by the immediate employer, is ordinarily a part of the business of the principal employer and that he would have to engage his own employees to do such work, as part of his business, but for the contract. 44. The contention of the Board that they have to be absolved of their liability arises only in a case, if the contract was to do certain things, not ordinarily a part of business or trade. If removal of coal ash was a requirement, incidental or connected with the generation of electricity, the business of the principal employer, then the work would have been done by the Board or through an immediate employer, under his supervision, if he had contracted the immediate employer/contractor. The element of supervision of the principal employer in the execution of the work entrusted to an immediate employer is also another factor to be taken into consideration, while determining the liability under Section 12(1) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. The element of supervision of the principal employer in the execution of the work entrusted to an immediate employer is also another factor to be taken into consideration, while determining the liability under Section 12(1) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. If electricity has to be generated by using the coal, at the Thermal power plant the accumulated ash has to be removed and it is ordinarily a part of business. 45. Merely because coal was sold for profit to the immediate employer, the Board cannot be permitted to contend that the removal of coal dust is not ordinarily a part of their trade or business. May be coal was sold, after removal, by the Contractor, but that was not the main activity for which, the contractor was engaged. The activity for which the work was entrusted to an immediate employer, viz., the contractor was ordinarily a part of their work, i.e., trade or business. On the facts of this case and applying the principles stated supra in various decisions, this Court is of the view that the contract executed by the Electricity Board with the Contractor, forms part of the trade or business and hence, they are liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of a deceased workmen. 46. Yet another aspect to be considered is whether the execution of any agreement by the immediate employer, viz., the contractor, to indemnify the principal employer, the Electricity Board, would disentitle the injured workman or the legal representatives from claiming compensation against the principal employer. Such an agreement or contract entered into between the Principal employer and Contractor can only govern their inter se rights and would not in any way affect the rights of the workman or the dependents to get their compensation either from the Principal employer or from the Contractor. Option is given to the claimants to claim compensation from anyone of them or both. 47. Provision of Section 12(1) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, would apply notwithstanding the agreement or contract entered into between the principal employer and contractor regarding their liability for payment of compensation under the Act. Option is given to the claimants to claim compensation from anyone of them or both. 47. Provision of Section 12(1) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, would apply notwithstanding the agreement or contract entered into between the principal employer and contractor regarding their liability for payment of compensation under the Act. Section 12(2) of the Workmen‘s Compensation Act, confers a right on the Principal employer, who is made liable to pay compensation under the provisions to get himself indemnified by the contractor and in such circumstances, both the principal employer and the contractor would be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 48. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the orders of the Labour Commissioner, warranting interference. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No costs.