4.Admittedly, the appellant is the owner of the building and was the principal employer as far as the second respondent was concerned and the third respondent was only a sub-contractor under the control of the second respondent and in building activities, those persons cannot be purely called as a contractor, but as a head of the labourers. The appellant being the owner of the building and appointed the second respondent as an authorized contractor to verify the construction works. The findings of the competent authority under the Workmen Compensation Act that the principal employer alone is to be fixed liability is a right decision, and this Court is not inclined to intervene with the findings of the Tribunal in this aspect. In all such cases, Mastries, head of labourers and a sub-contractor need not be held liable unless it is proved for contribution for a negligence. In all other circumstances, principal employer, namely, the owner of the building alone is liable for the accident and for the payment of compensation to the victims. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the ground raised in the present appeal and the same is devoid of merits and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
