JUDGMENT By Court:This appeal is against the order dated 30th November, 2004 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in W.C. Case no.1 of 2002, whereby learned Labour Court has fastened liability of paying compensation on the petitioner principal employer, under the provision of the Workmen Compensation Act. 2. The brief fact of the case is that Sukhmania Devi, the widow of Late Guja Oraon had filed application, claiming compensation for the death of her husband in an accident. It was stated that Guja Oraon was an employee of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. He met with an accident while engaged in the work at coal yard on 4th December, 2000. The accident had taken place when a truck belonging to M/s. Shankar Transport Company got rolled over causing lacerated injuries on the body of Late Guja Oraon. He was immediately taken to Foundry Forged Plant for first aid. Later on when Guja Oraon was being taken to H.E.C. Plant Hospital, he died before he could reach the Hospital. It was claimed that M/s. Shankar Transport Company and ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. were engaged in the work of H.E.C. Ltd. and as such, H.E.C. Ltd. being the principal employer is liable to pay compensation. 3. The appellantH.E.C. Ltd. contested the said claim application, stating, inter alia, that late Guja Oraon was engaged by ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. for their contractual work in Foundry Forge Plant of H.E.C. Earlier a proceeding was initiated at the instance of the Opposite Party no.2 H.E.C. Ltd. In the said proceeding, Opposite Party no.2 asked the Opposite Party no.3ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Guja Oraon. On the failure of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. to comply with the request, M/s. H.E.C. Ltd. filled up the E.E. under the Workmen Compensation Act informing the appropriate authority under the Workmen Compensation Act about the accident, resulting death of Guja Oraon. The appellant had also sent a notice to ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., requesting them to pay the wages of the deceased Guja Oraon and also to pay compensation amount to the legal heirs of the deceased or else. The appellant had also sent a notice to ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., requesting them to pay the wages of the deceased Guja Oraon and also to pay compensation amount to the legal heirs of the deceased or else. M/s. H.E.C. was compelled to deposit the compensation amount before the appropriate authority and to adjust the said amount of compensation against the bill of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 4. Subsequently, on failure of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. to respond to the request of the Management of the appellant, H.E.C. Ltd. calculated the compensation amount and deposited the same before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, a sum of Rs.1,39,435=08 paise and adjusted the same amount against the bill of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. The payment has been made subject to the decision of the Court. It has been stated that ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., being the employer, is liable to pay the compensation amount. 5. ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. also appeared and filed written statement. It was stated, inter alia, that the case was filed not for any claim but for justifying the amount of Rs.1,39,435=08 paise, which was unilaterally deduced from the bills of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and purportedly deposited as amount of compensation payable to the claimantSukhmania Devi, whose husband Guja Oraon died in the accident. Deduction of the said amount was unilateral and unauthorised and without taking any legal step against ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. It was further stated that Guja Oraon died in an accident, being run over by a truck of another transporter, namely, Shankar Transport Company. The accident took place at the time when Guja Oraon was neither on duty nor coming for or going from the duty. At the time of accident, Guja Oraon was unloading the truck of Shankar Transport Company. He was not on duty nor engaged by ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Said Shankar Transport Company is, thus, necessary party, but it was not made party. The case has been filed by the senior officials of H.E.C. Ltd. in collusion with legal heirs of Guja Oraon, when the aforesaid amount was deducted from the bills of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 6. On the said pleadings, several points were formulated for adjudication by learned Labour Court. Parties adduced their evidences. 7. The case has been filed by the senior officials of H.E.C. Ltd. in collusion with legal heirs of Guja Oraon, when the aforesaid amount was deducted from the bills of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 6. On the said pleadings, several points were formulated for adjudication by learned Labour Court. Parties adduced their evidences. 7. Learned Labour Court discussed the facts and evidences adduced by the parties in detail and, after due consideration and scrutiny of the same, came to the conclusion that H.E.C. Ltd. is the principal employer in respect of Shankar Transport Company and ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and the deceased Guja Oraon was not in the immediate employment of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. at the time of the accident. The appellantH.E.C. Ltd., being the principal employer, is liable to pay compensation to the claimant under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act. Learned Presiding Officer directed the Deputy Labour Commissioner to refund the deposited amount to ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. to compute the quantum of compensation and realise from H.E.C. Ltd. to disburse the same to the claimantSukhmania Devi along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of Guja Oraon till realisation of the amount. 8. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Presiding Officer, the appellant has preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that at the time of accident, after 4 O' Clock, the deceased worker was breaking and segregating coal, unloaded by ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. The truck, which unloaded the coal, was not on the spot. The deceased was hit by another truck of another company. He was the worker of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Learned Presiding Officer has erroneously held that Late Guja Oraon was under the employment of Shankar Transport Company. It is an admitted fact that Guja Oraon was an employee of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. The employer is not the H.E.C. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. 10. In view of the above, the points for decision in this appeal are as to under whose immediate employment accident of the deceasedGuja Oraon had taken place and whether the learned court blow has rightly arrived at its conclusion? 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. 10. In view of the above, the points for decision in this appeal are as to under whose immediate employment accident of the deceasedGuja Oraon had taken place and whether the learned court blow has rightly arrived at its conclusion? 11. In order to come to the finding, it is necessary to scrutinize relevant evidences on record. P.W.1 Md. Yunus was the Assistant Manager (Personnel), working under the appellant. In Paragraph3 of his deposition he has stated that the deceasedGuja Oraon was hit by vehicle of M/s. Shankar Transport Company. After accident, Guja Oraon was sent to the H.E.C. Plant Hospital where he died in course of treatment. In Paragraph29, he has stated that on the day of accident at about 4.00 p.m. no truck of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. had entered in the premises. In Paragraph 30 he has stated that the truck, which had caused accident, belonged to M/s. Shankar Transport Company. At the time of accident, coal of M/s. Shankar Transport Company was being unloaded. It is, thus, clear from the said evidence adduced by the plaintiff that the deceasedGuja Oraon was under the immediate employment of M/s. Shankar Transport Company at the time, the accident took place. 12. In view of the said cogent evidence and admission of the appellantcompany and after thorough appraisal of other evidences and facts and circumstances, learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that at the time the accident took place Late Guja Oraon was engaged in unloading work of M/s. Shankar Transport Company and he was under immediate employment of said M/s. Shankar Transport Company of which H.E.C. was the principal employer. Learned court below has further clearly held that there is no evidence on record to show that the accident, in question, took place in course of employment of the ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 13. From the facts and evidences on record, it is also clear that the appellant was the principal employer in respect of the employees of M/s. Shankar Transport Company and ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Since it has been held that the deceasedGuja Oraon, at the time of accident, was not under the immediate employment of ESSEM Transporters and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and he was under the employment of M/s. Shankar Transport Company. The H.E.C.appellant, being the principal employer, is liable to pay compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, as claimed by the claimant. 14. In view of the above discussion, the above points for consideration are answered against the appellant. 15. I find that all the facts and the materials available on record have been elaborately dealt with and considered by learned Labour Court. The findings of the learned Presiding Officer are recorded on the basis of appraisal of the facts and material on record and are supported by speaking reasons. 16. I find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi. 17. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.