JUDGMENT
D.R. Dhanuka, J.
1. The State of Maharashtra (Original Opponent No. 2) has preferred this appeal against the order dated 1st April 1985 passed by the Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation an Judge, 1st Labour Court, Solapur in Application (W. C.) No. 1 of 1984. By the said order, the Appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 19,200/- by way of compensation to the respondent No. 1 (Original Applicant). The Learned Commissioner also issued certain consequential directions while passing said order.
2. On 22nd November, 1983, Smt. Parvatibai, wife of Mahadeo Krushna Waghmode was working with the contractor Lingapa Hanmantu Vakital in respect of the construction of E. S. I. S. Hospital at Solapur. The Executive Engineer, E. S. I. S. Hospital, Solapur had awarded the contract for construction work to the said Lingapa Hanmantu Vakital. Smt. Parvatibai died as a result of an accident which took place while Parvatibai was working on the said project. Smt. Parvatibai was getting Rs. 12/- per day an by way of remuneration from the Contractor i.e., Respondent No. 2 herein. Mahadeo Krushna Waghmode made a claim for compensation against both the Opponents in sum of Rs. 50,000. –
3. By his well considered order dated 1st April, 1985, the learned Commissioner directed the Executive Engineer, E. S. I. S. Hospital, Integrated Unit, Solapur, to pay a sum of Rs. 19,200/- to the applicant as and by way of compensation. The Executive Engineer concerned was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- to the applicant towards cost of the proceeding. Certain other consequential direction were issued by the learned Commissioner which are not relevant for deciding this appeal.
4. It is well settled that the principal employer is liable to pay the amount of compensation for the injury suffered by the workman as a result of accident arising out of and in course of employment of the workman. If the Executive Engineer claims to be indemnified by the contractor in respect of compensation payable to the workman or his dependents, it is for Executive Engineer to adopt appropriate proceeding if so advised. The original applicant was entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the applicant therein. The quantum of compensation is correctly computed by the learned Commissioner in conformity with the provision contained in Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
5. The Learned counsel for the appellant has made an unsuccessful attempt to assail the order of the Learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. I have not been able to discover any infirmity in the order under appeal. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The appellant shall pay costs of the appeal to the respondents in separate set.
6. The Learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra makes a statement to the amount that the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court was deposited by the appellant with the trial Court. If the said amount is not yet withdrawn by the Mahadeo Krushna Waghmode, the original applicant, the trial Court must allow the original applicant to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest thereon, if any, latest within one month from today. The trial Court is requested to expenditure release of the above referred amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, to respondent No. 1 expeditiously as aforesaid. The necessary writ be issue and forwarded to the Court of the learned Commissioner with utmost expedition an urgency.
7. The Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side is directed to return the record to the trial Court expeditiously along with an ordinary copy of the judgment delivered to day duly authenticated by the Shirastedar of this Court.
8. Issuance of certified copy is expedited.