JUDGMENT : These appeals are at the instance of the Zilla Panchayat, Belgaum calling in question the legality of award dated 25.02.2010 in KaPaKa:SR:43/2007 and in KaPaKa:SR:44/2007 passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Labour Officer, Sub-Division-II, Belagavi (for short “the Commissioner”). 2. Brief facts insofar as the same are relevant for deciding the present appeals are that two persons namely Irappa Taragar and Nagappa Harijan were working as labourers under the Contractor who was executing the project for the appellant and on 15.04.2005 at about 8.15 p.m. on account of explosion of some gelatin sticks stored in the shed, Irappa Taragar and Nagappa Harijan died in the spot itself. It is stated that the project under which the said two persons along with several others were working was for implementing Jal Nirmala Yojana. 3. On claim petitions being filed, the appellant who was respondent No.4 before the learned Commissioner entered appearance through learned counsel and also filed statement of objections and thereafter took no further part in the proceedings. 4. During trial, the claimants examined themselves as PW.1 and PW.2 and another witness who was a Co-worker with the deceased. Ex.P.1 to P.9 were marked. Respondents examined one witness and Ex.R.1 and R.2 were marked. 5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the material on record, the learned Commissioner allowed both claim petitions in part by awarding compensation of Rs.3,79,120/-for the death of Irappa Taragar and Rs.3,19,600/- for the death of the Nagappa Harijan with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 30 days from the date of the accident. 6. Learned counsel Sri Anand Ashtekar appearing for the appellants has advanced sole contention to the effect that learned Commissioner has committed a legal error in not passing a direction enabling the appellant to effect recovery of the compensation from respondent No.5-Renuka Constructions Co. Gokak, who was the contractor under whom the two deceased persons were working in the project. He took me through the provisions of Section 12 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) in order to substantiate his contention. He accordingly, submitted that the matter is required to be remanded to the learned Commissioner to enquire into the matter by examining the project agreement between appellant and respondent No.5-Contractor and pass suitable orders in that behalf. 7. He accordingly, submitted that the matter is required to be remanded to the learned Commissioner to enquire into the matter by examining the project agreement between appellant and respondent No.5-Contractor and pass suitable orders in that behalf. 7. I have heard learned counsel Sri M.C. Hukkeri for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri. Vittal S. Teli for respondent No.5-Contractor, who have supported the award passed by the learned Commissioner. 8. There is no dispute about the basic facts that deceased were working as employees under the contractor in execution of the Jala Nirmala project for the benefit of the appellant herein and on account of explosion of some gelatin sticks preserved in the shed in the project site on 15.04.2005 at about 8.15 pm two persons, whose dependants are the claimants, had died instantaneously. 9. The contention advanced before me in this appeal is that the deceased had died while being at the worksite of the Jala Nirmala project in which they were working for the benefit the appellant and the deceased workmen were directly employed by respondent No.5-contractor and therefore in terms of Section 12 of the Act, the appellant has a right to recover the compensation awarded from the contractor-respondent No.5 on establishing that there is such a provision in the project agreement between the appellant and respondent No.5. For a better understanding of legal position, an immediate reference to Section 12 of the Act may be made and it reads as follows; “12. For a better understanding of legal position, an immediate reference to Section 12 of the Act may be made and it reads as follows; “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 [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 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 [employee] 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 [employee] 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 [employee] could have recovered compensation] and all question 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 [an employee] 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 ha undertaken, or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management.” 10. The above provision defines the persons who are treated as employers for the purpose of fastening liability to pay the compensation. The above provision defines the persons who are treated as employers for the purpose of fastening liability to pay the compensation. For instance, in this case, the accident occurred while the project was being executed for the Jala Nirmala Yojana, which is a project for the benefit of the appellant herein. However, the appellant was not executing the project by employing workmen directly. It is the say of the appellant that it had entered into an agreement for the execution of work with respondent No.5 whose primary task was to execute the project by hiring necessary workmen as well as commanding necessary machineries. The provisions of Section 12 of the Act noted hereinabove clearly presupposes execution of the works either directly by the beneficiary or through the agency of a contractor and in both the events, the employees who suffered injuries in employment related accidents are entitled to proceed against the beneficiary of the project or against the contractor commissioned by the beneficiary (Principal), who has directly employed such workmen. Sub Section 2 of Section 12 of the Act is explicit in saying that once existence of such an agreement for execution of the project through a contractor is proved, the principal who has paid compensation arising from claims pertaining to employment related accident has the right to be indemnified from a contractor who has employed such workmen. Such claims for indemnification as between the principal and contractor should be adjudicated by the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner. 11. In these appeals, the learned counsel apologetically submits that the appellant did not care to participate in the proceedings after filing the statement of objections and therefore appellant could not press for such adjudication before the commissioner. There is no doubt that if the authorities like the appellants remain so indifferent, they do so at their peril. However taking note of the fact that appellant is a public institution and the interest of public will suffer unless an opportunity is provided to make a claim seeking indemnification on the strength of the agreement before the learned Commissioner and therefore in recognition of the public interest, appropriate direction is required to be issued to the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner while maintaining compensation awarded and primary liability to pay the same by the appellant to the claimants. 12. 12. Accordingly, the above appeals are disposed of with liberty to the appellant to produce the agreement between itself and respondent No.5 (Renuka Constructions Co. Gokak) before the learned Commissioner seeking adjudication of the rights of the appellant to claim indemnification from the respondent No.5 in regard to the compensation paid by the appellant to the claimants. In the event of such adjudication being sought by the appellant, the learned Commissioner or learned Senior Civil Judge, to whom the jurisdiction is now entrusted, shall decide the same within six months from the date of such claim being made. 13. Amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the Court of learned jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge along with the records forthwith. 14. In view of disposal of the appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.