JUDGMENT M. Nagaprasanna, J. - This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.12.2011 passed in WCA/NF No.6/2005 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-1, Chikkamagalur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), the instant appeal has been preferred by the Zilla Panchayat, Sringeri, Chikkamagalur. 3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the 2nd respondent in the instant appeal had secured a contract of digging the well from the appellant-Zilla Panchayat and for which purpose, had employed the 1st respondent on contract/daily wage basis. It transpires that the 1st respondent was being paid Rs.150/- per day as wages. 4. On 7.6.2001 at about 12.30 p.m., when the 1st respondent was engaged in digging the well, the rope on which the 1st respondent was hanging, and which was at the height of about 45 feet, got cut due to which he fell into the well and sustained injuries all over the body. He was immediately shifted to Dhanavanthri Hospital, Sringeri and later, admitted to Manipal hospital wherein he was an inpatient from 7.6.2001 to 26.6.2001. On such injury, the 1st respondent filed a claim petition before the Commissioner claiming compensation on the ground that he was aged 41 years and was earning about Rs.150/- a day and due to the injuries sustained by him, he was unable to perform any job and he was forced to confine himself to the wheel chair. 5. The Commissioner, inter alia, held that the appellant Zilla Panchayat was liable to pay compensation, as the 1st respondent was working under the 2nd respondent, and was equally liable to pay compensation as there existed employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent and accordingly, directed the compensation of Rs.1,95,880/- with interest at 12% p.a. to be satisfied within 30 days from the notification of the award. Being aggrieved, the Zilla Panchayat has preferred the instant appeal. 6. I have heard Sri Ashok N. Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri M.N. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 7. Being aggrieved, the Zilla Panchayat has preferred the instant appeal. 6. I have heard Sri Ashok N. Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri M.N. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the accident took place on 7.6.2001 and the claim petition was filed after an inordinate delay of close to four years as against two years prescribed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to lodge a claim on a particular incident of either injury or death. He would further contend that there was no employer employee relationship between the 1st respondent and the appellant and hence, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st respondent. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-workman would contend that though the 1st respondent was not a direct employee under the appellant-Zilla Panchayat, nonetheless, he was on a contract performing the work entrusted to him by the Zilla Panchayat. He would refer to the provisions of the Act to contend that a person on contract, through a contractor, is also a workman under the principal employer and hence, the appellant cannot escape the liability for payment of compensation as injury to the 1st respondent had occurred while performing the work of the appellant. 9. I have considered submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the records. 10. In terms of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the only substantial question of law that would arises for my consideration is: i) Whether the order of the Workmen's Commissioner was justified in making the appellant liable for payment of compensation on the ground there existed an employer and employee relationship? 11. It is not in dispute that the accident had occurred on 7.6.2001 and the claim was lodged by the 1st respondent workman on 15.3.2005. No doubt, there is a delay in claim being lodged before the Commissioner, but the delay is not unexplained. The Workman placed before the Commissioner the material for the delay that had occurred in lodging the claim before him. It was with regard to the grievous injuries suffered by the 1st respondent-workman. No doubt, there is a delay in claim being lodged before the Commissioner, but the delay is not unexplained. The Workman placed before the Commissioner the material for the delay that had occurred in lodging the claim before him. It was with regard to the grievous injuries suffered by the 1st respondent-workman. Noticing the fact that it was the grievous injury that had stopped the claimant from lodging the claim, the Commissioner condoned the delay and accepted the delay. I find no good ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Commissioner in condoning the delay on an affidavit filed by the 1st respondent workman explaining the said delay. 12. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that there was no employer employee relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent is concerned, the relevant provisions of the Act reads as follows: " Section 2(1)(dd)(iii): "employee" means a person, who is-- (i) xxxx (ii) xxxx (iii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to any employee who has been injured shall, where the employee is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them." Clause (viii) of Schedule II appended to Section 2(1)(dd) of the Act reads as follows: "(viii) employed in the construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of a) any building which is designed to be or is or has been more than one storey in height above the ground or twelve feet or more from the ground level to the apex of the roof; or b) any dam or embankment which is twelve feet or more in height from its lowest to its highest point; or c) any road, bridge, tunnel or canal; or d) any wharf, quay, sea-wall or other marine work including any moorings of ships; or (ix) employed in setting up, maintaining, repairing or taking down any telegraph or telephone line or post or any overhead electric line or cable or post or standard or fittings and fixtures for the same; or" 13. A bare perusal of the afore-extracted statutory provision would clearly indicate that a person, who is employed for repair, maintenance or demolition of the structure, as specified in Sub-clause (a) to (d), extracted hereinabove, would be an employee under the Act. 14. Insofar as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there exited no employer and employee relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent is concerned, Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act reads thus: "(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 [employee] employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that [employee] had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed form 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 [employee] under the employer by whom he is immediately employed." In terms of the afore-extracted statute of the Act, any person who is employed through a contractor for execution of some work, the principal employer shall be held liable to pay compensation as if he would be an employee working under him. It is useful to refer to the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHIVABASAVVA AND OTHERS, (2007) ILR(Kar) 4970 , wherein this Court was pleased to hold as follows: "3. The W.C. Commissioner held that the deceased is employee of R-1and awarded the compensation. The employer is directed to pay the compensation in view of the fact that the vehicle in question was covered by the policy. 4. LTD. VS. SHIVABASAVVA AND OTHERS, (2007) ILR(Kar) 4970 , wherein this Court was pleased to hold as follows: "3. The W.C. Commissioner held that the deceased is employee of R-1and awarded the compensation. The employer is directed to pay the compensation in view of the fact that the vehicle in question was covered by the policy. 4. Substantial question of law: When employer of transport vehicle authorized / appoints any person to load the goods of the consignors without payment of remuneration on the part of the employer, but directs the consignor to pay the remuneration to the loader whether in such situation, the relationship of employer and employee exist between the deceased and R-1? 5. The facts disclose that R-1 has ingeniously devised the method of outsourcing in loading and unloading of goods. The terms of contract apparently shows that R-1 enters into contract exclusively with the persons for loading and unloading. In other words R-1 does not permit everyone to load and unload without his authorization. Obviously the loader is employed by R-1 and he works for the trade and business of R-1. However R-1 does not pay remuneration but consignor pays the remuneration. This ingenious method perhaps devised to circumvent the provisions of P.F. Act to show that contract loaders are not persons employed by the establishment. 6. The definition of workman clinchingly establishes that the deceased was employed as loaded and he was working for the business of R-1. The fact that R-1 does not pay remuneration is not a ground to hold that there is no relationship of employer and employee. R-1 virtually enters into ingenious contract to overcome his obligations under the Labour Welfare law, the terms of contract between R-1 and the deceased offends U/s.12 of WC Act." 15. In terms of the statute and the law declared by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Shivabasavva's case (Supra), if the facts of the case and the statutory provisions are noticed, it becomes unmistakably clear that there is existed an employer and employee relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent, since the 1st respondent was engaged for digging a well in the Zilla Panchayat Division Chikkamagalur through the 2nd respondent, who was the contractor and was injured while performing his duty on 07.06.2001, as the rope on which the 1st respondent was hanging at a height of 45 ft. broke and fell down resulting in grievous injuries. 16. No other ground is urged before this Court by the appellant. Hence, the substantial question of law framed hereinabove is answered by holding that the incident/accident took place during the course of employment when the 1st respondent was engaged by the appellant and there existed employer and employee relationship in terms of Section 12 of the Act and the Commissioner was justified in holding that the appellant was liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent. 17. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The appeal stands dismissed by answering the substantial question of law against the appellant and in favour of the 1st respondent. (ii) The judgment and order dated 28.12.2011 passed in WCA/NF No.6/2005 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub- Division-1, Chikkamagalur, is affirmed. (iii) The appellant shall satisfy the award amount, if not already satisfied, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iv) The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub- Division-1, Chikkamagalur, forthwith.