JUDGMENT : M.T. Joshi, J. Heard Mr. S.V. Dankh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Yugant Marlapalle, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. None for rest of the respondents. 2. The present appeal arises out of the direction of learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act for payment of compensation to the respondent No. 1 Radhakishan i.e. original claimant/petitioner for the death of his wife Jaibai w/o Radhakishan. 3. It was the case of respondent No. 1 that on 27th October, 1990, while deceased Jaibai was employed on daily wages for preparing chapaties by Namdeo Shete i.e. present respondent No. 3 as a contractor of present appellant i.e. original respondent No. 2 Bajaj Auto Limited Employees' Consumer's Cooperative Society Limited, she suddenly caught fire and eventually died. Therefore, the compensation was claimed from Bajaj Auto Limited, present appellant i.e. Bajaj Auto Limited Employees' Consumer Cooperative Society Limited and the contractor i.e. Namdeo Shete - present respondent No. 3 to whom the work of preparation of chapaties specifically was allotted. 4. The learned Commissioner, upon hearing both sides, has found that so far as the present respondent No. 4 Bajaj Auto Limited is concerned, it has nothing to do with the work of catering to the employees and therefore, the respondent No. 4 was absolved from payment of compensation. So far as other respondents i.e. present appellant and respondent No. 3 - Namdeo Shete are concerned, the learned Commissioner directed the present appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 27,110.40 to the claimant/original petitioner. A further direction was issued that the present appellant would be at liberty to indemnify the payment of compensation from the respondent No. 3 - Namdeo Shete. 5. Mr. S.V. Dankh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent No. 3 - Mr. Namdeo Shete was given the contract of preparing chapaties outside the premises of the canteen which was run by the present appellant and as such, as the accident had occurred elsewhere than the said premises, the appellant would not be liable to pay any compensation. He alternatively submitted that the learned Commissioner at least ought to have imposed joint and several liability on the appellant and respondent No. 3 - Namdeo Shete. 6. This appeal was admitted on 6th September, 2002, on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Who is the employer of the deceased ? He alternatively submitted that the learned Commissioner at least ought to have imposed joint and several liability on the appellant and respondent No. 3 - Namdeo Shete. 6. This appeal was admitted on 6th September, 2002, on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Who is the employer of the deceased ? (ii) Whether the deceased was workman within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ? Upon hearing Mr. S.V. Dankh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Yugant Marlapalle, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, in my view, the present appellant as well as respondent No. 3 were the employer of the deceased and the deceased was workman within the definition of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed, for the reasons to follow Reasons :- 7. There is no denial that the deceased was employed by respondent No. 3 - Namdeo Shete specifically for preparation of chapaties, as on contract basis, he had undertaken the said work from the present appellant. Mr. Dankh, learned counsel for the appellant emphatically submitted that since admittedly the work of preparation of the chapaties as per the claimant himself was carried outside the premises of canteen of Bajaj Auto Limited elsewhere i.e. the house premises outside of the canteen, in view of the provisions of subsection (4) of section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the appellant would not be liable to pay any compensation. 8. The provisions of section 12 run as under: "12. Contracting. 8. The provisions of section 12 run as under: "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 contracts 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. (2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the workman could have recovered compensation, and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a workman from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal. (4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management." 9. (4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management." 9. In order to escape from liability to pay compensation, the appellant was required to plead and prove that it was undertaking or usually undertaking the work of preparation of the food at some specific place i.e. the canteen premises provided by respondent No. 4 - Bajaj Auto Limited or any other place and only the work of preparation of chapaties was being carried elsewhere than the said premises. The pleadings in this regard are blissfully vague. There is no pleading as to what was the exact place of undertaking. In the circumstances, the benefit of provisions of subsection (4) of Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be extended to the present appellant. 10. It should, however, be noted that the respondent No. 3 - Namdeo Shete was the contractor engaged by the present appellant for preparation of chapaties which he used to carry through the employee i.e. the deceased. In those circumstances, the direction of the learned Commissioner that the present appellant would be at liberty to get the compensation to be paid by it indemnifying from the respondent No. 3 is vague. 11. In the circumstances, it would be necessary to specifically declare that the appellant and respondent No. 3 - contractor Namdeo Shete are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the following order: The first appeal is partly allowed without any order as to costs. The direction No. 5 of the learned Commissioner contained in the impugned order is hereby set aside and instead, it is hereby declared that the present appellant and respondent No. 3 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 27,110.40 to the respondent No. 1. Rest of the claim in appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.