JUDGMENT 1. The award passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Mysore in favour of respondent No. 3 herein is called in question in this appeal on the ground that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. The records reveal that the appellant herein entered into contract with the first respondent for installation, erection and commissioning of a transformer near temple of Koilegala village. Hunsur sub division. The first respondent herein in turn entrusted the work to the second respondent Maruti Electricals. The claimant/3rd respondent was the employer under Maruthi Electricals. The 3rd respondent/claimant was attending the work or electric pole near temple of Koilegala Village in Hampapura, Hunsur- Sub division at 5.30 p.m. on October 29,2002. At that point of time lie came in contact with live wire having power supply which resulted to severe multiple burning injuries to head and other parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to the hospital. However, the claimant/3rd respondent suffered permanent disability ranging from 55 to 60% as certified by the doctor. The claimant filed an application under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act before the Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Mysore claiming compensation. On hearing, the Commissioner awarded compensation of 7 3,18,773/- together with 12% interest p.a. The said authority however fixed the responsibility of paying compensation entirely on the appellant. The said award is called in question in this appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 fully managed by Government of Karnataka. The appellant entrusted the work of installation of all the towers and commissioning in Hunsur Sub division to the 1st respondent herein which is again a Government of Karnataka undertaking. The contract is entered into between the 1st and the 2nd respondent relating the entrustment of the works. The 1st respondent inturn engaged services of the 2nd respondent - Maruthi Electricals, by executing a letter of award of labour contract dated November 2, 2001. It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent/claimant is the employee of 2nd respondent. 3. At the time of filing the claim petition it seems, the claimant did not know about the contract entered into between the appellant and the ISI respondent. Consequently, the claimant seems to have initiated the claim against the appellant directly along with Maruthi Electricals. It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent/claimant is the employee of 2nd respondent. 3. At the time of filing the claim petition it seems, the claimant did not know about the contract entered into between the appellant and the ISI respondent. Consequently, the claimant seems to have initiated the claim against the appellant directly along with Maruthi Electricals. It is averred that the appellant herein. has entered into contract with Maruthi. Electricals. The appellant had undertaken not to switch off lights up to 6.00 p.m every day for enabling the completion of work by Maruthi Electricals. Ignoring the said promise, the, appellant switched on the electricity supply by 5.30 p.m., consequent upon which the claimant suffered grievous injuries. Even in the evidence claimant has deposed about the said facts. However, during the pendency of the matter the 1st respondent herein filed an application, for-impleading. The same application has been allowed and the statement of objections are filed by the 1st respondent before the Commissioner. The 1st respondent has denied its liability by contending that it is Maruthi; Electricals which is liable to pay the compensation inasmuch as 1st respondent had infact entrusted the work to Maruthi Electricals and as per the agreement between the 1st respondent herein and Maruthi Electricals,, Maruthi Electricals is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent, herein. After hearing all the parties, the award is made by the Commissioner fixing the liability on the appellant herein. 4. Heard the learned advocates and perused the records. 5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the following clauses found in the contract entered into between the appellant and the 1st respondent herein which are the State Government undertakings. Relevant Clauses of the contract read thus; Clause 2.13.1: The Contractor shall supply at his own cost, such safety devices, like steel or fibre glass helmets, slings, ropes, belts, covering for legs and hands, masks etc., when working underground or in water or when handling cement, or working on steep slopes etc., as the Engineer may direct in the interest of safeguarding the workmen from liability to accidents or damages to health and to carry out such measures as the Engineer may prescribe in this behalf. The Contractor snail also he responsible for the adequacy of the strength and design of scaffolding, gang-ways, notice boards etc., erected for the execution of the works. The Contractor snail also he responsible for the adequacy of the strength and design of scaffolding, gang-ways, notice boards etc., erected for the execution of the works. Clause 2.14.1 : The Contractor shall be responsible for all accidents to persons employed by him which may arise in the execution of the works, and from whatever cause they may arise during execution and maintenance of works included in the contract and shall arrange for insurance as prescribed in clause 2.45. of this Section. Clause 2.14.2 : The Contractor shall indemnify the CORPORATION against all action, suits, claims, demands, cost of expenses arising in connection with injuries suffered up to the date when the works or plant shall have been taken over under clause-herein by persons employed by the Contractor or his sub-Contractor whether under the general law or under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or any other statute in force on the date of the contract dealing with the question of the liability of employee from injuries suffered by employees and to have taken steps properly to ensure against any claims there under. On the occurrence of accidents which result in the death of the workmen employed by the Contractor or which result in injury so serious as to be likely to result, in the death of any such workmen, the Contractor shall within 24 hours of happening of such accident, intimate in writing to the concerned Engineer, the fact of such accident. The Contractor shall indemnify CORPORATION against all loss or damages sustained by CORPORATION resulting directly or indirectly from failure to give intimation in the manner aforesaid as a consequence of CORPORATION'S failure to give notice under the Workmen's Compensation Act, otherwise to conform to the provision of the said act in regard to such accident. In the event of any claim being made or action brought against the CORPORATION involving the Contractor and arising out of the matter referred to and in respect of which the Contractor is liable under this clause, the Contractor shall he immediately notified there of and he too shall with the assistance, if so required of the CORPORATION but at the sole expense of the Contractor conduct all negotiations for the settlement of the case or any litigation: that may arise there from. In such cases the CORPORATION shall at the expense of the Contractor afford all available assistance for any such purpose. 6. In such cases the CORPORATION shall at the expense of the Contractor afford all available assistance for any such purpose. 6. From the above, it is clear that the 1st respondent has agreed that it would supply on its own cost materials such as safety devices as are necessary for completion of the work. It is also undertaken to safeguard the interest of the workman from the accidents or damages. The work has to be carried out as the engineer may prescribe in this behalf. The respondent No. 1 has undertaken the responsibility of all the expenses, that may arise in execution of work. It has also undertaken to indemnify against such: damages to the appellant in respect of the actions, suits, claim arising in connection with the injuries suffered up to the date when the works or grant shall have taken over, under the clauses herein by the persons employed by the; contractors or by the sub contractors etc., Thus, it is clear that the 1st respondent herein is responsible for all the damages to be paid by the appellant. As the 1st respondent is entrusted with duties by the appellant and as the 1st respondent has undertaken to pay the damages arising from liability in respect of accidents etc. the 1st respondent is liable to pay compensation. 7. In this regard it is also relevant to note the contract entered into between the 1st respondent herein and the 2nd respondent dated November 2, 2011. The Clauses 23.2, 23.3, 23.4 & 40.1, of the contract entered into between 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent; read thus: 23.2: Reporting Accident of Labour The Labour Contractor shall be responsible for the safety of all employees and or workers employed or engaged by him on and in connection with the works and shall forthwith report all cases of accidents to any of the, however caused and whenever occurring, to the Owner and shall make every arrangement to render all possible assistance and aid to the victims of the accident. 23.3: Provision of Workmen's Compensation Act The Labour Contractor shall at all times indemnify and keep indemnified the owner against all claims for compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 or any other law for the time being in force by or in respect of any workmen employed by the Labour Contractor in carrying out the contract and against all costs and expenses or penalty incurred by the owner in connection therewith. In every case in which, by virtue of the provisions of the said Act, the Owner is obliged to pay compensation to a workman. Owner shall recover from the Labour Contractor the amount of the compensation so paid and without prejudice to the rights of the Owner under the said Act. The owner shall be at liberty to recover such amount or any part thereof by deducting it from the Security Deposit or from any amount due by the owner to the Labour Contractor, whether under this contract or otherwise without prejudice to any other remedy that may be available to the Owner in Law. The owner shall not be bound to contest any claim made against it under the said Act, except on the written request of the Labour Contractor and upon his giving to the Owner full Security for all costs for which the employer might become liable in consequence of contesting such claim. 23.4 Accident or Injury to Workmen The Owner shall not be liable for or in respect of any damages or compensation payable at law in respect or in consequence of any accident or injury to any workman or other person in the employment of the Labour Contractor or his sub-Labour Contractors and the Labour Contractor shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Owner against all such damages and compensation and against whatsoever in respect thereof or in relation thereto. 40.1 Compensation In any case which under any clause or clauses or clauses of this contract, the Labour Contractor shall have rendered himself liable to pay compensation amounting to the whole of his security deposit (whether paid in one sum or deducted by installments) the Owner shall have power to adopt any of the following courses as he may deem best suited to the interests of the Owner. 8. 8. It is clear from the aforementioned clauses that the 2nd respondent is liable to pay for damages that have occurred in respect of or in connection with or in consequence of any accident or injury to any workman or any other person in the employment of his labour contract or sub labour contract. The labour contractor shall keep indemnified against ail such damages and compensation and against whatsoever in respect of or in relation thereto. Thus, the entire compensation to be paid by the 1st respondent is to be indemnified by the 2nd respondent who had taken the services of 3rd respondent in executing the work. In view of the fact that the; work was entrusted by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent as sub contractor and as the 3rd respondent is the workman of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent. From the; discussions made above, it is the 1st respondent who is primarily liable to pay the compensation and the 2nd respondent herein is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent about damages to be paid by the 1st respondent. 9. In this context, it is argued by the advocate appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent had taken all the precautions as are necessary to safeguard the interest of the labourers including 3rd respondent but the appellant did not keep up the promise of switching off or stopping of supply of electricity till 6.00 p.m. Since the appellant had negligently switched on the electricity supply at 5.30 p.m. without notice to the respondent. Nos. 2 and 3, the appellants should be held liable for paying the compensation. Such a contention cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had agreed to stop electricity supply till 6. p.m. There is no agreement as such in that regard between the appellant and the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent. In the absence of such an agreement between the parties, it cannot be assumed by this Court that the appellant had agreed to switch off the electricity till 6.00 p.m. Hence, the contention of the 2nd respondent in that regard cannot be accepted. Be that as it may. In the absence of such an agreement between the parties, it cannot be assumed by this Court that the appellant had agreed to switch off the electricity till 6.00 p.m. Hence, the contention of the 2nd respondent in that regard cannot be accepted. Be that as it may. Having regard to the agreed terms of the contract the 1st respondent had undertaken to pay the damages in respect, of the work entrusted to the 1st respondent, by the appellant. It is the primary responsibility of the 1st respondent to pay the compensation to the 3rd respondent. In turn the 2nd respondent shall indemnify the 1st respondent by repaying the entire damages to 1st respondent. Accordingly the following order is made. (i) The impugned order of the Commissioner insofar as it relates to fixing the liability on the appellant is set-aside. (ii) It is held that the 1st respondent herein is liable to pay the entire compensation with interest as ordered by the Commissioner. (iii) The 2nd respondent in turn shall indemnify the 1st respondent by paying entire amounts paid by the 1st respondent to the claimant. (iv) Appeal is allowed accordingly.