JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the 'Act'), the appellant Kamalakanta Pandey challenges the order of the Addl. District Magistrate and Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Boudh-Khondmala, Phulbani directing him to pay Rs. 18,000/- towards compensation to the widow of the deceased Amar Bisimajhi alias Digal. 2. From the records, it appears that the proceeding before the Commissioner was initiated on 4-2-82 on receipt of the report from the District Labour Officer, Phulbani dated 6-1-82 that Amar Bisimajhi who was employed as a mason by Kamalkanta Pandey to do certain work in his house at Hatpada on 3-12-81 met with an accident resulting in his death. It was further stated in the report that the incident occurred in course of employment of the deceased. The workman was stated to have worked as a mason on a monthly wage of Rs. 300/-. The District Labour Officer requested the Commissioner to take necessary action u/s 10A of the Act. To this report was enclosed a petition dated 28-12-81 by one Gabanbisi Majhi, elder brother of the deceased, addressed to the District Labour Officer informing him about the accident which occurred when Amarbisi Majhi was engaged in pulling down a pucca wall in the house of Kamalakanta Pandey. The applicant stated that the deceased left a widow and a minor son aged 4 years who were totally depending on his (deceased) income. The District Labour Officer was requested to make payment to the widow and son of the deceased for their maintenance. 3. On receiving the aforementioned report, the Commissioner directed notice to be issued to the appellant alleged to be the employer of the workman. On receiving the notice, the appellant filed his statement on 11-3-82 disclaiming liability to pay any compensation on the ground that the deceased was not a workman under his employment of any work on the date of his death or on any date prior to it and the allegations against him in this regard are false. Thereafter, as the records reveal, enquiry was taken up by the Commissioner with the District Labour Officer as the petitioner and the appellant as the opposite party. The records in the connected criminal case, U D.G.R. No. 29 of 1981 (P.S U.D Case No. 8/81) were called for. Thereafter, as the records reveal, enquiry was taken up by the Commissioner with the District Labour Officer as the petitioner and the appellant as the opposite party. The records in the connected criminal case, U D.G.R. No. 29 of 1981 (P.S U.D Case No. 8/81) were called for. The A.S.I. of Phulbani Police Station who investigated into the case was examined by the Commissioner on 6-8-82. Statements of Simanchal Sahu said to be a co-worker of the deceased at the time of the accident and of Bira Naik who lodged the report at the police station on which the aforesaid case was initiated were recorded on 29-9-83. It is pertinent to mention here that these two witnesses denied to have any knowledge about the deceased meeting his end in the accident as alleged in the application. The Commissioner on consideration of the materials on record and broad probabilities of the case came to hold that the deceased was engaged as a mason by the appellant for demolishing the brick wall inside his house and met his death while working there. Accordingly he allowed the petition for compensation and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 18,000/- to the widow of the deceased. The said order of the Commissioner is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Sri S.C. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order is unsustainable as it is based on no acceptable material. The learned Counsel pointed out that since both the witnesses, Simanchal Sahu and Bira Naik declined to support the case of the petitioner, the Commissioner should have held that it was not established that the deceased was engaged by the appellant as his workman at the time of accident. The learned Counsel also urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after giving both the parties opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. 5. Before proceeding to consider the correctness of the finding arrived at by the Commissioner, it would be pertinent to examine the point regarding procedure followed by the Commissioner while passing the order for payment of compensation. As noticed earlier, the proceeding was initiated on the report submitted by the District Labour Officer who requested the Commissioner to initiate a proceeding u/s 10A of the Act. As noticed earlier, the proceeding was initiated on the report submitted by the District Labour Officer who requested the Commissioner to initiate a proceeding u/s 10A of the Act. The said section deals with power of the Commissioner to require from employers statements regarding fatal accidents. The section reads as follows: 10A. (1) Where a Commissioner receives information from any source that a workman has died as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, he may send by registered post a notice to the workman's employer requiring him to submit, within thirty days of the service of the notice, a statement, in the prescribed form, giving the circumstances attending the death of the workman, and indicating whether, in the opinion of the employer, he is or is not liable to deposit compensation on account of the death. (2) If the employer is of opinion that he is liable to deposit compensation, he shall make the deposit within thirty days of the service of the notice. (3) If the employer is of opinion that he is not liable to deposit compensation, he shall in his statement indicate the grounds on which he disclaims liability. (4) Where the employer has so disclaimed liability, the Commissioner, after such enquiry as he may think fit, may inform any of the dependants of the deceased workman, that it is open to the dependants to prefer a claim for compensation, and may give them such other further information as he may think fit. The Section enables the Commissioner to take suo motu proceeding when he receives information about a workman dying in an accident while at work. During such proceeding if a question arises whether compensation is liable to be paid by a person who is not already on record the Commissioner has power to issue notice to such a person and secure his presence. The phraseology in the section suggests that the Commissioner is not adjudicating any claim while issuing the notice under the section and that he is only acting in his administrative capacity. The provision further shows that the employer on receipt of such a notice has two options. If the employer admits liability for compensation he must make the deposit of the requisite amount within thirty days of the service of the notice. The provision further shows that the employer on receipt of such a notice has two options. If the employer admits liability for compensation he must make the deposit of the requisite amount within thirty days of the service of the notice. On the other hand, if the employer feels that he is not so liable the employer must file a statement indicating the ground on which he disclaims the liability. If the employer disclaims the liability the Commissioner has given the power to make enquiry and find out whether the employer is or is not liable for compensation payable to the dependants on account of the death of the workman. If it is found prima facie that the employer is liable, the Commissioner has to inform the dependants of the deceased-workman that it is open to them to prefer a claim for compensation. In case the employer in his reply denies liability to pay compensation there is no power of the Commissioner u/s 10A to determine the amount of compensation and the liability of the employer. The power of the Commissioner to determine the liability of the employer would arise if the dependant makes an application on being informed of his right to do so. In that case the application has to be filed u/s 22 of the Act and dealt with according to the procedure prescribed Under Sections 23 to 25 of the Act. 6. Examining the present case in the light of the principles indicated above, it appears that the Commissioner failed to maintain the distinction between a proceeding u/s 10A of the Act and one u/s 22 of the Act, i.e. while in the former he acts in administrative capacity in the latter he acts as the adjudicatory authority. From the order-sheet, it is not clear whether the Commissioner treated the proceeding to be one u/s 10A or u/s 22 of the Act. I presume that he took it as one u/s 10A for the reasons that the District Labour Officer expressly requested him to initiate a proceeding under that section, he has taken the District Labour Officer as the petitioner and not the dependable of the deceased and he did not issue intimation to the widow or dependants of the deceased to participate in the proceeding. If the proceeding was one u/s 10A of the Act, the Commissioner could not pass the order therein directing the appellant to pay the sum of Rs. 18,000/- as compensation to the widow of the deceased. He should have intimated the widow or other dependants, if any, about his prima facie finding and required them to file application claiming compensation as provided u/s 10A(4) of the Act. Here, I would like to point out that to the report of the District Labour Officer was attached an application by the elder brother of the deceased stating, inter alia, about the accidental death of the deceased due to injury sustained thereby while he was working under the appellant and the deceased having left his widow and minor son as his dependants. The applicant, Gaban Bisi Majhi did not claim to be a dependant of the deceased. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the findings arrived at by the Commissioner that the deceased was employed by the appellant as a mason and he died while working as such in his (appellant's) house on 3-12-81. These findings relate to factual matters. u/s 30, it is clearly provided that no appeal shall lie against any order to this Court unless substantial question of law is involved therein. In view of the statutory provision restricting the scope of appeal, 1 am not inclined to interfere with the said findings. 8. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the proceeding has been dealt with by the Commissioner and the fact that the proceeding has been pending since 1982,I am of the view that the ends of justice would be served by remanding the case to the Commissioner for adjudication in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the statute and the law. Accordingly, while not disturbing the finding arrived at by the Commissioner, I would set aside the direction in the impugned order requiring the appellant to pay the sum of Rs. 18,000/- towards compensation to the widow of the deceased Amar Bisi Majhi @ Digal and remand the case to the Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law. He will give notice to the appellant and also Gabana Bisi Majhi, the elder brother of the deceased, Peta Bisi Majhi, the widow of the deceased to enable them to adduce evidence if they so like. He will give notice to the appellant and also Gabana Bisi Majhi, the elder brother of the deceased, Peta Bisi Majhi, the widow of the deceased to enable them to adduce evidence if they so like. There will be no order for cost.