DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. Mohammad Hussain, son of the respondent, was in the employment of the appellant. On 1st May.
1972 he died while taking bath. The respondent claimed Rs. 6,000 as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and Rs. 3,000 under the Group Insurance Scheme. The appellant agreed to pay Rs. 8,000 under the Group Insurance Scheme but refused to pay any amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as it was pleaded that the death had not occurred during the course of duty. Consequently, the respondent made an application under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for the grant of Rs.
6,000 as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The application was resisted.
3. Several issues were framed and evidence was recorded. On the assessment of the evidence sue learned Commissioner decided all the issues against the respondent but be entertained the view that tie appellant was bound to pay Rs. 5,000 under the Group Insurance Scheme and since Rs.
3,000 were paid, he ordered the payment of additional sum of Rs. 5,000. He rejected the claim so far as the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned as the death had not occurred during the course of duty. Aggrieved by the amount awarded under the Group Insurance Scheme, the present appeal was filed. d. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had never claimed any amount under the Group Insurance Scheme and, therefore, the learned Commissioner acted beyond his power in awarding the amount. It was also contended that no such issue was framed and no evidence was led. Compulsory Group Insurance Scheme is enforceable under Standing Order l0(B) and this could be applied only to permanent workers and not to temporary workers.
Nothing was brought on record to show whether the deceased was a permanent worker or a temporary worker. The appellant was taken unaware and neither any issue was framed nor any evidence was led to that effect. The learned Commissioner could not allow any compensation under Standing Order 10(B) without deciding the status of the deceased specially when no such claim was made by the respondent. The application was apparently mace for the award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and not under the Group Insurance Scheme. No new case could be set up by the Commissioner in his orders without offering any opportunity to the parties.
5. In the result the appeal is allowed and order of the Commissioner-- is set aside. The compensation amounting Rs. 5,000 if deposited to the appellant.