Principal employer is liable for compensation even if the workman was engaged through an independent contractor.

The appellant, Satpal Mittal, engaged respondent no. 3 (Inder Singh) to perform electrical repairs at his factory.

While assisting respondent no. 3 as a helper, the son of respondent nos. 1 and 2 suffered fatal electrocution on the premises.

The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation allowed the claim, holding the appellant and respondent no. 3 jointly and severally liable for compensation, interest, funeral expenses, and a penalty.

The appellant challenged this order, primarily contending that he was not the direct employer of the deceased and thus not liable.

1. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the appellant and the deceased to warrant liability under the Employees' Compensation Act.

2. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law as required for interference under Section 30 of the Act.

The court applied Section 2(e) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, which provides a broad definition of "employer," and Section 12, which governs the liability of a principal employer in contracting scenarios.

The court relied on the precedent Golla Rajanna & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr., establishing that the Commissioner is the final authority on facts and appeals are limited to substantial questions of law.

It further applied Govind Goenka v. Dayawanti & Ors., which clarifies that a principal employer remains liable even if work is performed through an agent or contractor.

The court found that the appellant admitted to owning the factory and engaging respondent no. 3 for repairs.

While the appellant denied a direct contract with the deceased, the court reasoned that under Section 12 of the Act, a principal employer cannot absolve themselves of liability by using a contractor.

The court noted that respondent no. 3 acted as an agent of the appellant, and since the deceased was working under the contractor’s supervision on the appellant’s premises for the appellant's benefit, the statutory definition of "employer" was satisfied.

Furthermore, the court observed that the Electrical Inspector’s report confirmed non-compliance with safety regulations at the appellant's site.

The court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the Commissioner’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence.

The court directed that the deposited award amount, including accrued interest, be released to respondent nos. 1 and 2.