JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘The Act’) against the impugned order dated 30.08.2006 in W.C. No.16 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru (in short as “Commissioner”). 2. The appellant was the O.P. No.3, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein were the claimant No.1, Opposite Parties Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively, before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the learned Commissioner. Case of the claimant 3. Deceased Vinukonda Polaiah is husband of the claimant. While he was working as a rod bender with O.P. No.4, met with an accident and died on 16.09.2004 as the rod touched electrical wire. O.P. No.1 is Sub-contractor, O.P. No.2 is the Executive Engineer who entrusted the work to O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.4 is the main contractor who obtained the work and entrusted the same to O.P. No.1. The claim is for Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation with costs and interest. Contention of the O.P. Nos.1 to 4: 4. O.P.No.1denied the employment, wages, relation between deceased and himself apart from all the contents of the application.O.P.No.2 also filed counter in the same lines as contended by the O.P.No.1. They further stated that, construction work is being done by the Public Health Department, Eluru, hence he is not a necessary party. O.P. No.3 – Superintendent Engineer stated the he entrusted the work, hence he is not a necessary party. He further stated that, agreement collected by Public Health Engineering Department, Eluru in the agreement vide clauses 3,4,9 under the caption ‘Safety Measures’ at page numbers 195- 197 regarding safety measures to be taken and it is the sole responsibility of the contractor who is the O.P. No.4. 5. Issues – Enquiry: a) Basing on the rival pleadings of both parties, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues. 1. Whether the deceased is a workman and whether the accident occurred, during the course of employment or not? 2. What the wage and age particulars to determine the quantum of compensation? 3. Whether all the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation or not? b) During the course of enquiry, the claimant herself was examined as AW.1. She reiterated the contents of the petition in her chief examination. 2. What the wage and age particulars to determine the quantum of compensation? 3. Whether all the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation or not? b) During the course of enquiry, the claimant herself was examined as AW.1. She reiterated the contents of the petition in her chief examination. In support of her case, she filed copy of First Information Report – Ex.A1, Inquest Report – Ex.A2 and Post Mortem Examination Report – Ex.A3. c) Claimant flatly denied the suggestion made to her in the cross examination that the contractor is only liable to pay the compensation. She stated that, 20 persons worked as rod benders. She is aware that, Public Works Department gave contract to Coramandel Prest Crates Pvt. Ltd. Sri A.M.R.Das is the Sub-contractor. One Sri M.Ramesh Babu, Superintendent, Office of the Public Health Department, Eluru examined as RW.1. He categorically stated that, the works have been entrusted to Coramandel Prest Crates Pvt. Ltd. in the joint venture with M/s. Durga Construction Corporation, Vijayawada by the Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Department, Rajahmundry and the same is being executed by the Contractor in the premises of Water Works Compound. O.P.No.3 is not the principal employer. The Contractor who entrusted the work is the employer. As per the contents of the agreement, the safety measures need to be taken by the Contractor. In support of their contention, they filed Ex.B1 - Authorization and Ex.B2 – Agreement. 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner opined that, death of the deceased occurred during the course of employment and it was not disputed by any of the parties. The casual employee employed for trade or business is also a workman entitled for compensation and coming to the liabilities of the Opposite Parties, learned Commissioner opined that, O.P. No.1 employed the deceased as Sub-contractor and the work is undertaken by the Public Health Department for Eluru Municipal Corporation. They are the necessary parties. As the O.P. No.3 has to look after the compliance of the safety provisions mentioned in the agreement is also liable for compensation. O.P. No.4 being in a joint venture with Coromandel Pest Grades Pvt. Ltd. as Contractor and principal employer of Sub-contractor is also liable to pay compensation. 7. They are the necessary parties. As the O.P. No.3 has to look after the compliance of the safety provisions mentioned in the agreement is also liable for compensation. O.P. No.4 being in a joint venture with Coromandel Pest Grades Pvt. Ltd. as Contractor and principal employer of Sub-contractor is also liable to pay compensation. 7. The learned Commissioner has taken into consideration of Section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and fixed the liability against all the Opposite Parties jointly and severally. Considered the age of the deceased as per the Post Mortem report as 26 years and taken into consideration minimum wages as per G.O.Ms.No.69, Labour Employment, Training and Factories (Lab.II) Department, dt.29.11.2000, the minimum wage is fixed as Rs.3,168/- and basing on his age, fixed the compensation at Rs.3,41,004/-. Accordingly, directed the Opposite Parties to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of order. 8. Grounds of Appeal Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, O.P. No.3 carried the matter in this appeal basing on the grounds that the Court below ought to have seen that the appellant has no relationship of employee employer with the deceased. The deceased was employed by the O.P. No.4 and he was not an employee of the appellant, the claimant not filed any wage slips of the deceased to prove his income or any document in proof of the age of the deceased and as per the contents of the agreement, O.P.No.4 is solely responsible for the safety measures and that appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. 9. Substantial Questions of Law: As seen from the memo of appeal, it appears the appellants filed this appeal as if it is under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In fact, as per Section 30 of the Act, unless there is substantial question of law, appeal cannot be entertained, be that as it may from the grounds of appeal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant. The substantial questions of law that would emerge for determination are as follows: 1. Whether the learned Commissioner can fix the liability on the O.P.No.3 though the deceased is an employee of the Sub-contractor under O.P. No.4? 2. Whether there exists any relationship of employee and employer between the deceased with the Opposite Parties? 3. The substantial questions of law that would emerge for determination are as follows: 1. Whether the learned Commissioner can fix the liability on the O.P.No.3 though the deceased is an employee of the Sub-contractor under O.P. No.4? 2. Whether there exists any relationship of employee and employer between the deceased with the Opposite Parties? 3. Whether the learned Commissioner is right in fixing the compensation in absence of any document to prove the age and income of the deceased ? 10. Heard both the learned counsel. Perused the material available on record. Determination by the Court 11. The question raised in this appeal is no more resintegra in the light of catena of judgments of this Court, other High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is relevant to extract Section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. “Section 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.” 12. On perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the learned Commissioner rightly relied upon Section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and the proceedings arose thereunder for compensation to the claimant. Section 12(1) of the Act, refers to a principal in the course of his trade or business contracting with the contractor for the execution of the whole or part of any work, which is ordinarily part of the trade and business of the principal. The provision contemplates that any workman immediately employed by the contractor is entitled to compensation as per the principal as well as the calculation of the compensation being with reference to the wages of a workman. The principal may be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor by virtue of Sec 12(2). More so, Sec.12 (3) makes it clear that nothing contained in the Section may be interpreted to prevent a workman from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal. 13. In A.Srinivasa Rao v. V.K.Ravindra Babu and others, 2011 SCC Online AP 975, a Coordinate Bench of the composite High Court while extensively dealing with the law on point has categorically held in Para Nos.13 to 16,reading thus: “13. In K.Kamalaveni Vs. 13. In A.Srinivasa Rao v. V.K.Ravindra Babu and others, 2011 SCC Online AP 975, a Coordinate Bench of the composite High Court while extensively dealing with the law on point has categorically held in Para Nos.13 to 16,reading thus: “13. In K.Kamalaveni Vs. Managing Director, Subbathal Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., 2005 ACJ (Madras), Madras High Court was dealing with the definition of workman under section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (as it then stood) and opined that to exclude a person from the category of a workman not only should his employment be casual in nature, but his employment also must be not for the purpose of the employer’s trade or business. Referring to the case-law on the subject, the learned Judge opined that both the conditions must be satisfied to exclude a person from the scope of workman. The learned Judge also considered the scope of section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and opined that when the work was executed through a contractor and a person was engaged for that work and faced an accident during the course of his employment, the principal employer is liable to pay compensation under the Act. 14. Kerala High Court in Payyannur Educational Society Vs. Narayani, 1996 ACJ 73 (kerala) was also construing section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and signifying the words ‘trade or business’ used in section 12 to have a very extensive meaning denoting anything connected with the trade or business of the principal. The Division Bench also considered the word ‘ordinarily’ used in section 12 to be a very elastic term and the word was directed to be understood in the background of the execution of the particular work. In that view, two workmen engaged in excavation work by the contractor of a society were held to be victims within the meaning of section 12 of the Act. Kerala High Court again was dealing with the subject in Malankara Rubber and Priduce Co. Ltd. Vs. Hameed, 2002 (2) LLJ 630 and the work undertaken by a contractor in respect of expansion of factory building was considered to be with reference to the business of the principal making it liable to pay compensation for the death of a workman engaged by the contractor. 15. Patna High Court in Sumitra Devi Vs. Ltd. Vs. Hameed, 2002 (2) LLJ 630 and the work undertaken by a contractor in respect of expansion of factory building was considered to be with reference to the business of the principal making it liable to pay compensation for the death of a workman engaged by the contractor. 15. Patna High Court in Sumitra Devi Vs. Executive Engineer, udar Asthan Irrigation Division, 1997 ACJ 155 (Patna), was again referring to the definition of workman under section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and found a casual khalasi employed by a competent authority of the Irrigation department to be one engaged for the purpose of trade or business of the employer and as both requirements of the definition were not satisfied the workman could not be excluded from the definition of workman. The court also observed that even if the appellant was casual, if the employment is of a longer duration, the benefits of the Act cannot be denied. 16. Above all, an identical situation was the subject of consideration by a Division Bench of this court in Bala Mallamma Vs. Registrar, Osmania University, 2002 ACJ 986 (AP), wherein the liability of the university under section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of a person employed for white washing/colour washing of a building was in question. The deceased fell down from a height of 40 ft as he was white washing the building and died and the Division Bench considered it to be part of the business of the university and the employment by the contractor was held to be one covered by section 12 with reference to the case law on the subject. These conclusions of the Division Bench are binding on this court and consequently, both the contractor and the principal employer represented by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have to be made liable to pay compensation for the consequences of the injuries suffered by the applicant-appellant arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent no.1 as a painter in the Collector’s bungalow.” 14. In the light of the aforementioned premises, the order impugned does not call for any interference of this Court in the appeal. The Act is a piece of beneficial social legislation enacted with a prime object of safeguarding the rights as well as protecting the welfare of the workmen. In the light of the aforementioned premises, the order impugned does not call for any interference of this Court in the appeal. The Act is a piece of beneficial social legislation enacted with a prime object of safeguarding the rights as well as protecting the welfare of the workmen. It is a settled principle of law that the Court must interpret the provisions of the beneficial legislation in order to achieve the object for which it was enacted. There is no denial of entrusting work to the O.P. No.4 by the O.P. No.3. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died due to touching of electrical wire during the course of employment. Accordingly, the point is answered. Point Nos.2 & 3: 15. Coming to the case on hand, the learned Commissioner exhaustively dealt with the question of relationship between the deceased with the Opposite Parties as employee and employer and also rightly relied upon the Post Mortem certificate to decide the age of the deceased and in absence of any proof of income, rightly considered the minimum wages and arrived at a conclusion by awarding the compensation which is on correct lines. This Court is aware of the settled principle that Commissioner is the last authority on facts and Section 30’s scope is restricted by the legislation. Accordingly, these points are answered in negative to the appellant. 16. In result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. In circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stands closed.