ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the award 14.5.04 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Ratlam in Case No. 25/WCF/97 whereby claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was allowed and compensation of Rs. 1,50,329/- was awarded for which respondent No.3 and appellant were held liable, present appeal has been filed. 2. The appeal was admitted for final hearing by this Court vide order dated 22.6.05 on the following substantial questions of law :- (i). Whether deceased Dhanji would fall within the definition of ‘Workmen' of appellant, as contemplated under section 2 (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? (ii). If Dhanji was not the worman of appellant, whether Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation was justified in awarding compensation to respondent Nos. I & 2 for his death, which was during the course of employment? . 3. Short facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. I & 2 filed a claim petition before the learned Court below alleging that Dhanji was the son of respondent Nos. I & 2 who was employed with respondent No.3 for supply of water at Bamaniya Railway Station. It was alleged that respondent No.3 was Contractor of the appellant, thus the appellant was the principle employer of the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased Dhanji was employed by respondent No.3 on payment of wages @ Rs. 1,350/- per month. The job of the deceased was to fill in the water into the tanker. It was alleged that Ramchanda was the driver of the said tanker, who got the deceased appointed with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that Dhanji died during course of his employment on 5.6.97, therefore, respondent No.3 and appellant are liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. Respondent No.3 contested the case alleging that the deceased was not in the employment of respondent No.3. Appellant submitted the written statement, wherein it was not disputed that the contract was given to respondent no. 3 for supply of water and sleepers. However rest of the contents were denied. It was prayed that the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be dismissed against the appellant. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Court below allowed the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and awarded a sum of Rs. However rest of the contents were denied. It was prayed that the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be dismissed against the appellant. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Court below allowed the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,329/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% P.A., against which present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that from the facts on record is amply proved that the deceased was murdered by the respondent No.3 in whose employment the deceased was working. It is submitted that since the deceased was not in the employment of the appellant, therefore, learned Court below committed error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that since Dhanji was murdered by the respondent No.3, therefore, it cannot be termed as an accident. It is further submitted that since the death of Dhanji was not out of and in the course of employment, therefore, appellant cannnot be held liable for payment of compensation. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of State Bank of India v. Smt. Vijay Laxmi, 1998 (1) MPLl 432 wherein deceased who was employed as messanger in Bank died in accident when public bus in which he was proceeding on his duty plunged into river resulting in death, a Division Bench of this Court held that nothing had been brought on record to show that employee was obliged to travel in any particular manner under terms of employment nor he was travelling in a transport provided by employer. It was further held that travel by public transport by deceased cannot therefore be regarded as a travel as a part of his duty, hence claimant not entitled to get compensation. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. v. Ramu Pasi, 2006 (2) MPLJ 223 wherein claim was for compensation by claimant who was casual worker for injury in his finger, Hon'ble Apex Court held that workman defined in the Act does not cover a casual worker, hence claim is not maintainable. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2 submit that after due appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties learned Court below came to the conclusion that the appellant was the principal employer and the deceased was employed by respondent No.3 to whom the contract of supply of water and sleepers was given by the appellant, therefore, learned Court below committed no error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and the same be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case respondent Nos.1 & 2 have examined Bagji AW/1, Ramchandra AW/2, Balusingh AW/3, Rangabai AW/4 and Bherulal AW/5, while no evidence was adduced either by the appellant or by the respondent No.3. 7. From perusal of the record it is evident that no evidence has been adduced by the appellant and also by respondent No.3 to avoid the liability. After carefully examining the evidence adduced by respondent No.1 & 2 learned Court below has found that Dhanji died during course of his employment. Section 2 (n) of Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923 lays down the definition of 'Workman'. Prior to enforcement (amendment) Act, 2000 relevant part of the definition of 'Workman' reads as under: Section 2 (n) -- 'workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is (i) a railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Scheduled II, or (ii) employed * * * * * in any such capacity as is specified in Scheduled II. Scheduled II lays down the list of persons who subject to the provisions of section 2 (i) (n) are included in the definition of 'Workmen'. This Schedule lays down (xxxii) categories of persons employed as casual labour. 8. Scheduled II lays down the list of persons who subject to the provisions of section 2 (i) (n) are included in the definition of 'Workmen'. This Schedule lays down (xxxii) categories of persons employed as casual labour. 8. The definition of 'Workman' lays down in clause 34 of section 2 of Railways Act, 1989, which reads as under:- "railway servant" means any person employed by the Central Government or by a railway administration in connection with the service of a railway; [including member of the Railway Protection Force appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957]." 9. In the matter of P.K. Shukla v. Executive Engineer, 2007 ACJ 220 wherein labourer was engaged by contractor for repairing bridge and died, this Court while holding the State liable for payment of compensation directed that the State is entitled to recover the amount paid by it under the award of the Commissioner. In the matter of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Ms. Asha Madan, 2000 (4) MPHT 142 wherein deceased sustained fatal injuries in the course of his employment with the contractor, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation fastened the liability jointly and severally on the appellant and contractor, this Court held that principal can seek indemnity of the amount of compensation from the contractor under section 12 (2) of Workmens' Compensation Act. 10. Keeping in view the definition of 'Workman' under Railways Act and also under the provisions of Workmens' Compensation Act and also the fact that Dhanji was alleged to be murdered when he was demanding for his wages from respondent No.3 for which respondent No.3 was also prosecuted, this Court is of the view that the deceased Dhanji would fall within the definition of 'Workman' and is also of the view that the Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation was justified in awarding compensation to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on account of death of Dhanji. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and the same stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that the appellant shall be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from respondent No.3. Akash Sharma for appellant; Praveen Bhatt for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; M.A. Bohra with M.R. Sheikh for respondent No.3.