JUDGMENT : 1. Executive Engineer PWD (R&B), Special Sub Division, Doda is in appeal against the award dated 29.11.2008 passed by respondent No. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act after making pre deposit before respondent No. 1. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent No. 2 while working with respondent No. 3 sustained grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 22.11.2002. It is stated that respondent No. 2 was an iron smith by profession and was engaged by respondent No. 3 as labour for construction of road KM 1st Bhell Lal Draman along with other labourers. On 20.11.2002, the concerned Junior Engineer supervising the work handed over a compressor rod to the applicant for carrying out some repairs. The Junior Engineer aforesaid as also the Contractor-respondent No. 3 directed one other labourer namely Ghulam Hussain to assist the respondent No. 2 in carrying out the repairs on the compressor rod. It is stated that on the next day, the respondent No. 2 who had some expertise in the matter being iron smith started repairing the compressor rod and while he was repairing the compressor rod, it suddenly bursted resulting in grave and serious injuries to the respondent No. 1 as well as to other workers assisting him. Respondent No. 2 was immediately shifted to District Hospital, Doda, where owing to his injuries, his right forearm below elbow was amputated. As a result of these injuries, respondent No. 2 was rendered permanently disabled. He preferred a claim petition before respondent No. 1. It was contested primarily on two grounds:- (a) That there was no privity of contract between the respondent No. 1 and the appellant and that he was employed as labour by respondent No. 3. (b) That the injury had occurred to respondent No. 2 in an accident, which took place after normal working hours and, therefore, it cannot be said that the injuries were sustained during or in the course of employment. 3. Both the parties led their evidence before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 did not find any substance in the pleas taken by the appellant and accordingly allowed the claim petition. The compensation payable to respondent No. 2 was assessed as Rs. 2,97,000/- including interest @ 6% per annum. 3. Both the parties led their evidence before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 did not find any substance in the pleas taken by the appellant and accordingly allowed the claim petition. The compensation payable to respondent No. 2 was assessed as Rs. 2,97,000/- including interest @ 6% per annum. The compensation as is apparent from the award was worked out strictly in accordance with Section 4 read with Schedule IV of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 4. The appellant is in appeal before this Court challenging the award passed by respondent No. 1 on the following grounds:- (a) That in the absence of the privity of contract between the appellant and respondent No. 2, the liability to pay compensation could not have been fastened on the appellant. (b) That the accident had not occurred during or in the course of employment and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 was working as a contractor with the appellant and was executing the work allotted to him by none other than the appellant. It is also not in dispute that respondent No. 2 was engaged as labourer by respondent No. 3 for execution of the work of the appellant. From the evidence led by the parties before respondent No. 1, it is further evident that the job of repairing the compressor rod was assigned to respondent No. 2 by the Junior Engineer of the appellant and not by respondent No. 3. 6. Viewed from any angle, the appellant cannot avoid its liability to compensate the respondent No. 2. The appellant being a principal employer was liable to pay the compensation to the respondent No. 2 on account of permanent disablement suffered by him during and in the course of his employment with the appellant. 7. Even on facts, the job of repairing the compressor rod was entrusted to respondent No. 2 by the appellant. 8. That being the position, the plea of the appellant that there was no privity of contract between the respondent No. 2 and the appellant is misconceived and is noticed to be rejected only. 9. Both the pleas raised by the appellant to challenge the award, therefore, fail. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 8. That being the position, the plea of the appellant that there was no privity of contract between the respondent No. 2 and the appellant is misconceived and is noticed to be rejected only. 9. Both the pleas raised by the appellant to challenge the award, therefore, fail. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The amount of the award deposited before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Doda shall be released in favour of respondent No. 2 forthwith and for rest of the amount, if still payable to respondent No 2, shall be entitled to work out his remedies. 10. Disposed of.