JUDGMENT : S.G. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Khyati Hathi for appellant No. 1-Taluka Development Officer and learned Advocate Mr. Divyank Tripathi for Mr. Premal S. Rachh for respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No. 3268 of 2014 who is also appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No. 2217 of 2015. Perused the record. 2. In First Appeal No. 3268 of 2014 appellant is original-opponent No. 6 which is considered as a principal employer whereas in First Appeal No. 2217 of 2015, appellant is actual employer being original-opponent No. 1. Thereby, both the opponents/appellants have challenged the same judgment and award dated 9-5-2013 in Workmen’s Compensation Fatal Application No. 51 of 1998 wherein Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act and Labour Court of Jamnagar has awarded an amount of Rs.1,97,060/- with 9% interest and 25% penalty to be paid by both the opponents being original-employer i.e. Contractor of work and principal employer. 3. Principal employer being Taluka Development Officer has challenged the award contending that they have not employed the deceased-victim, and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. It is also contended by both the appellants that alleged incident has taken place almost after five months from the date of completion of work contending that work was completed on 22-3-1997. Opponent No. 1-original employer of deceased-victim of incident has also challenged the award taking the same ground that work was over and deceased-victim of the incident was voluntarily working on construction site on behalf of the village people to add more rooms in the school premises. 4. I have perused the available record so also R. & P. It is an undisputed fact that on 18-8-1997 one Vinubha Dolubha had received fatal injuries on construction site of the school wherein work for construction of school assigned by the opponent No. 6 to opponent No. 1. 4. I have perused the available record so also R. & P. It is an undisputed fact that on 18-8-1997 one Vinubha Dolubha had received fatal injuries on construction site of the school wherein work for construction of school assigned by the opponent No. 6 to opponent No. 1. Because of such accidental death, wife of the victim has preferred claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner wherein both the respondents have though appeared and though taken active part during the trial by cross-examining the claimant and by examining the witness on behalf of opponent No. 1, unfortunately, both of them have failed to prove on record by appropriate evidence that in fact, work of construction of school was over as back as in the month of March, and thereby, no work was carried out by them and that in fact, village people have started the work of adding one more room in school premises on their own, and therefore, they have allowed the victim to carry out further construction. Thereby, it is submitted that the deceased-victim was working on site on his own and he was not employee of opponent No. 1 as a Contractor or opponent No. 6 as a principal employer by whose order working of construction of school was carried out by opponent No. 1. 5. Perusal of R. & P. makes it clear that though such stand is taken before the Commissioner, unfortunately, neither of the appellants/opponents have produced any evidence on record to confirm that work of contract is over, and thereby, deceased was not in employment, and thereby, not employer of either of the appellant, and therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation from them. It is also not proved that deceased was doing work on his own as per the requirement of the village people, and therefore, at the most he is doing work for and on behalf of the village people and neither for the Contractor nor the principal employer who has given work under the contract to the Contractor. 6. In support of such submission, appellants are relying upon Exh. 6. In support of such submission, appellants are relying upon Exh. 108 the 4th bill for the work done by the Contractor submitting that this is last bill dated 30-3-1997, and thereafter, there is no bill and thus, it is final bill and that amount of all the bills raised by the Contractor is for the total amount of contractual work, and thereby, there is no work pending, and therefore, if accident is taken place in the month of August i.e. almost after five months after completion of work, it cannot be said that deceased was employed by it. However, there is no substance in such submission for simple reason that in fact Exh. 108 itself discloses that it is not a final bill, but it is fourth running bill, and thereby, it cannot be said that it was last bill, and therefore, work is completed, even amount of different bill is not material to conclude that since bills for contractual amount has already been raised work is over. There may be additional bill as per the requirement or change in circumstances, and therefore, in absence of completion certificate being issued by the principal or beneficiary of work, it cannot be said that work is over, only because it is so pleaded by the appellants without any proof or evidence to confirm such situation. 7. Appellants are also relying upon the deposition of one Dinesh Chaganbhai Shaikh at Exh. 109 who is member of the Contractor i.e. opponent No. 1. Attempt was made by his deposition to say that work of Contractor was over. However, scrutiny of such deposition makes it clear that deponent witness has not disclosed that how he is concerned and aware about the factual details regarding employment of deceased and the incident except saying that he is member of the Co-operative Society being opponent No. 1. However, now, he came with different date for the completion of work i.e. 22-3-1997 thus both the appellants are disclosing it different dates as 28-3-1997 and 30-3-1997, but in any case when witness has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he is not aware that work under reference was continued for how-much time, it becomes clear that he is only a chance-witness so as to mislead the Court and to produce some abrupt evidence before the Court to get undue advantages. The witness has also confirmed that he is not aware that whether deceased was employed by opponent No. 1 or not. Therefore, it cannot be said that witness has proved that deceased was not employed by opponent No. 1-Co-operative Society. But most interesting admission by the witness is to the effect that he is aware about requirement of raising final bill which is raised only after completion of final work, and in the present case, he is not aware that whether final bill was raised or not. He also admits that he has gone to the site only when work was going on. Thereby, it is clear that he has not visited the site after completion of work, and therefore, witness has not come with clean hands, and therefore, because of his admission as aforesaid even if he stated contrary in his examination-in-chief, it cannot be read separately without considering the statement in cross-examination. 8. Therefore, there is no substance in the ground by either of the appellant that deceased-victim was not serving under them when victim had met with an accident while working on the construction site where opponent No. 1 was having contract to complete construction by opponent No. 6, and therefore, both the appellants are liable to pay compensation to the victim of accident or his legal heirs as per the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, there is no substance on the ground regarding cause of action that incident being arising out of and during the course of employment and to that extent appeal needs to be dismissed. 9. So far as appeal by principal employer is concerned, the provision of law itself is sufficient enough to confirm that principal employer is also liable to pay compensation even if victim was not in his or its employment. For the purpose, reference of Sec. 12(1) and (2) are material which confirms that in case of injury to workmen employed by Contractor to carry out work of some-other, person for whom work is to be carried out is called as principal employer and if workmen employed by Contractor was never employed by such principal employer, and thereby, though there is no nexus or relationship of the victim and such principal employer. Principal employer shall liable to pay compensation to the victim of incident with a rider that it may recover such amount from the Contractor, thus Contractor has to indemnify the principal employer if such principal employer has to pay an amount of compensation by order of the Court. Therefore, there is no substance in second ground also. 10. Section 12 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 reads 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 Contract 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. (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.” 11. In view of above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reasons or substance in appeal so as to interfere with and modifying the amount of award. However, it is made clear that when principal employer being Taluka Development Officer has deposited amount of compensation for filing such appeal, the amount awarded may be modified only to the extent that considering the provisions of Sec. 12(1) and (2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the principal employer is entitled to recover such amount from Contractor. For the principal employer may either recover such amount from payment of running or final bill and if any bill is not pending, may recover by filing execution petition against Contractor because it is statutory duty of the contract to indemnify the principal employer. 12. In view of above facts and circumstances, First Appeal No. 3268 of 2014 is partly allowed so as to be modified the award in aforesaid terms that respondent No. 2 (original opponent No. 1) - Contractor shall indemnify the principal employer whereas First Appeal No. 2217 of 2015 filed by the Contractor being devoid of merits, its stands dismissed.