Short Note : 1. The appellant in all these appeals is M/s Suman Construction Company, a Private Limited Company. The appellant had taken a contract for diggings canal. An accident happened on 13.4.1973 in which three persons, namely Arjundas, Banikdas and Maheshram, lost their lives. Separate applications were filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on behalf of the defendants of the deceased for claiming compensation. These applications were filed on 23.5.1973 through one Sundaram Secretary P.W.D. Workers Union, Korba. No person appeared on behalf of the dependants on various dates on which the applications were listed for hearing. All the three application were dismissed on 16.10.1975 for default of appearance. Three applications for restoration were filed on 10.11.1975 on behalf of the dependents. In one of them, the reason for non-appearance was that the dependent concerned was not informed by her representative of the date of hearing and in the remaining two the reason given was that the concerned dependents were ill. These applications were opposed by the Company. No evidence was recorded. There were not even affidavits in support of the applications for restoration. The applications were however, allowed on 21.9.1976 and the cases were restored. Thereafter, evidence was led by the parties regarding the matters connected with the accident and liability. All the three cases were decided on 23.9.1977 and in each case, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as compensation with Rs. 100/- as costs. Against the award made in each case, the Company has filed these three appeals. 2. The applications for restoration were not even supported by affidavits. No evidence whatsoever was recorded. Even the order of restoration passed in each case is a cryptic order. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the Commissioner committed substantial error of law in restoring the case, when no evidence was produced in support of the applications for restoration. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted before us that even without restoring the cases instituted by the dependents, the Commissioner could have taken proceedings under section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The proceedings in the instant cases started not under section 8, but under section 10 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted before us that even without restoring the cases instituted by the dependents, the Commissioner could have taken proceedings under section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The proceedings in the instant cases started not under section 8, but under section 10 of the Act. As order 9 of the Code has been made applicable to the proceedings before the Commissioner, the claim cases dismissed for default could be restored only on the proof of sufficient cause for non-appearance. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the claim cases of the dependents were wrongly restored. The normal consequence of this conclusion would be to nullify the awards made in all the three cases completely. However, learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that the Company is prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 4,800/- as compensation in each of the cases and that the appeal should be allowed only to that extent. In view of this concession made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeals have to be partly allowed.