JUDGMENT : MOHINDER PAL, J. 1. Raj Pal (deceased-workman), son of Gaje Singh was employed as full time labourer by respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Panchkula and Executive Engineer, UHBVN Ltd. Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as the respondents No. 1 and 2) through contractor i.e. Parveen Kumar (appellant) (respondent No. 4 before the Commissioner). Raj Pal admittedly died on 29.5.2008 due to electrocution by electricity wires while in employment of the respondents No. 1 and 2. Raj Pal on 14.5.2008 along with Ravi, Satyawan, Satharain, Karan Singh all residents of Village Chandana were working at Kutubpur Electricity Line Near Hari Nagar under the directions of respondents No. 1 to 3 and the appellant. Respondent No. 3 and Parveen Kumar (appellant) were present at the spot when Raj Pal met with an accident while he was working near electrical transformer and he got electrocuted by electricity wires hanging over his head. He was admitted in Ram Kirti Hospital, Kaithal and then referred to PGI, Chandigarh and he succumbed to his injuries due to electrocution on 29.5.2008 while undergoing treatment at PGI, Chandigarh. Raj Pal (deceased-workman), at the time of his death was about 30 years old. 2. There was casual and proximate connection between the death and employment of the deceased with the appellant-Parveen Kumar and respondents No. 1 and 2. It has been admitted by the respondents No. 1 and 2 while defending its case before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner). However, the respondents No. 1 and 2 took the stand that the deceased- workman was got employed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 through respondent No. 4 (appellant) (contractor). The appellant appeared as RW-4 and tendered his affidavit (Ex. RW-3/A) and stated therein that he never engaged Raj Pal (since deceased) as a labourer. So he denied the relationship of master and servant between him and Raj Pal. However, he admitted that he had taken contract for 89 days from 2.5.2008 and also admitted that he had supplied labour to respondents No. 1 and 2. He admitted that on 14.5.2008, he had supplied labour but he did not know where his labour had been working. During his cross-examination, he had denied his signature on an agreement Ex. However, he admitted that he had taken contract for 89 days from 2.5.2008 and also admitted that he had supplied labour to respondents No. 1 and 2. He admitted that on 14.5.2008, he had supplied labour but he did not know where his labour had been working. During his cross-examination, he had denied his signature on an agreement Ex. R4 which was executed by him with respondent No. 2, but Amolk Singh, S.D.O. (RW-1) and Sham Sunder, J.E. (RW-2) (respondent No. 3) had deposed in their statements that the said agreement (Ex. R4) was got executed by the appellant. The Commissioner had gone through the list of labourer as Mark R-6, but came to the conclusion that the said list had been procured by the appellant just to avoid his liability to pay compensation as neither mis list was prepared according to law nor the same had been countersigned by the competent authority. After appreciating the evidence and material produced before it, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that Raj Pal was working as labourer with respondents No. 1 and 2 through contractor-Parveen Kumar (appellant). The Commissioner, vide order/award dated 17.2.2011, in the claim petition filed by the claimants of the deceased-workman, i.e. respondents Nos. 4 to 7, held them entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,53,329/- (including interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum) from 14.5.2008 i.e. Rs. 82,759/- taking the wages of the workman as Rs. 3,586/- per month i.e. the wages as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The amount of compensation was recoverable jointly and severally from the respondents No. 1 and 2. However, respondents No. 1 and 2 were given liberty to recover the awarded amount i.e. compensation and interest from the appellant after depositing the awarded amount in that Court. It was further ordered by the Commissioner that in case the amount of compensation was not deposited before it within 30 days from the date of communication of the award along with interest at the rate of 9% from 14.5.2008 i.e. Rs. 82,759/-, the claimants would be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the award till its realization from the respondents No. 1 and 2. 82,759/-, the claimants would be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the award till its realization from the respondents No. 1 and 2. It was further ordered by the Commissioner that the respondents No. 1 and 2 would be entitled for indemnification of the amount of compensation from the contractor i.e. appellant-Parveen Kumar. 3. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the award passed by the Commissioner so far as direction to recover the amount of compensation and interest from the appellant is concerned. As is evident from the Civil Miscellaneous No. 18620-CII of 2011 filed by the appellant along this appeal, the respondents No. 1 and 2 has already deposited the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 4,48,728/- with the Commissioner and they have been given recovery rights from the appellant. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the records of the case, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference in the impugned award. In this case, the respondents No. 1 and 2 are admittedly the principal employer. At the time of accident, the deceased-workman was working under contractor i.e. appellant-Parveen Kumar, engaged by the principal employer i.e. the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is by now well-settled that where the employee working under contractor engaged by the principal employer had sustained injury or died during the course of employment, the principal employer will be primarily responsible for complying with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act) and he will be entitled to claim indemnification u/s 12 of the Act. Section 12(1) of the Act provides that where the principal employer, in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any 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. Section 12(2) of the Act further provides that where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this Section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned award. 5. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit.