THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A No.1428 of 2000 JUDGMENT: Respondent No.1 filed W.C. Case No.3770 of 1997 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Hyderabad (Twin Cities) under Section 22 (2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’) claiming a sum of Rs.2,66,604/- as compensation. It was pleaded that respondent No.2 was engaged as a contractor by the appellant and that respondent No.2 in turn employed respondent No.1 to work at a transformer near Ameerpet. It was pleaded that in the course of erection of the transformer, respondent No.1 received burn injuries and the same resulted in amputation of both the hands at the elbow level and that he suffered 100% disability. Respondent No.2 filed a counter stating that respondent No. 1 i.e. injured was not an employee, but was a sub-contractor himself. He denied the obligation to pay the compensation. The appellant filed a counter expressing its ignorance of the very occurrence of the incident. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 never worked with the Board much less received any reimbursement. It was mentioned that respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 in full and final settlement of the dispute. The Commissioner passed an order, dated 09.03.1999, awarding a sum of Rs.2,15,040/- as compensation and directed respondent No.2 as well as the appellant to deposit the amount. The said order is challenged in this appeal under Section 30 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is, no doubt, true that respondent No.1 received injuries in the course of erection of a transformer. The whole controversy was as to whether he was employed with respondent No.2 and whether the appellant awarded any contract in favour of respondent No.2. The version of respondent No.2 was that a sub-contract was given to respondent No.1 and that there was no relationship of employer and employee. The Commissioner proceeded on the assumption that there existed a contract from the appellant in favour of respondent No.2 and that the latter had engaged respondent No.1 as a workman. Notwithstanding the uncertainty as to the relationship between the parties, Section 12 (2) of the Act protects the interest of a principal employer. Assuming that there existed a contract between the appellant and respondent No.2, the former is entitled to recover the amount from the latter. Respondent No.2 did not choose to file an appeal or Cross-Objections challenging the findings recorded by the Commissioner. The appeal is partly allowed holding that it shall be open to the appellant to recover the amount deposited by it in compliance with the order, dated 09.03.1999, passed in W.C. Case No.3770 of 1997 from respondent No.2 in accordance with Section 12 (2) of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.11.2011. kdl