J.R. CHOPRA, J.—By this reference under s. 27 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, the following questions have been referred for decision of this Court by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur (for short the Commissioner): (1) Whether the Insurance Company can be impleaded as necessary party, as employer, in a case under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923? (2) Whether the Insurance Company can be required to satisfy the decree, passed against an employer as judgment-debtor, specially when the Insurance Company has been once dropped as opposite party? (3) Whether the notice dated 19.10.78 to the Insurance Company fulfills all the requirements of a notice under S.96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act? (4) Whether all or specific provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to proceedings under the Workmens Compensation Act? (5) Whether S. 82, Civil Procedure Code is applicable in respect of an Insurance Company? 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this reference briefly slated are : that one Raju @ Umed Singh while working in the employment of one Pratap Singh Thekedar, a registered owner of the truck bearing No. RJQ 9513 met his death in a truck accident. He himself was the driver of the truck. The second driver of the truck was one Jagdish who at the relevant time was driving the truck which met with an accident and caused the death of Raju. An application for workmen compensation was filed by the legal heirs of Raju @ Umedsingh against the owner of the truck Pratapsingh and driver of the truck Jagdish as also against the National Insurance Company Ltd., (Non-petitioner No. 2), which has insured the truck for third party risk. A notice of this application filed in Form G was issued to the non petitioner No. 2, In pursuance of that, it filed a reply and submitted that it does not come under the definition of an employer and, therefore, for determination of the compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, the National Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., is not a proper and necessary party. Pvt. Ltd., is not a proper and necessary party. The averments made in paras 1 to 6 of the application were, however, denied and it was alternatively pleaded that the insurance policy only covered one driver and not two drivers It so appears, that in view of these submissions, the petitioner requested for the deletion of the name of non-petitioner No. 2 and that request was accepted by the Court. However, while deleting the name of non-petitioner No. 2, the Court ordered that the claim of the petitioner against non-petitioner No. 2 is dismissed as withdrawn. Be that as it may, after holding the enquiry, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the death was occurred during the course of employment and, therefore, it decreed the claim of the petitioners against Shri Pratapsingh for a sum of Rs. 16,800/-. The compensation was not deposited by the owner of the truck and, therefore., an application was filed that proceedings for recovery of this amount be initiated against the owner of the truck. The learned Commissioner, therefore, issued a certificate to the Collector, Jodhpur for the recovery of Rs. 16,800/- from the owner of the truck Shri Pratapsingh. In the execution proceedings pending before the Collector, an application was filed by Pratap Singh that this amount should be deposited by non-petitioner No. 2 because it is liable to pay this amount as a judgment debtor. On this, a notice was issued to the non-petitioner No. 2. It failed to appear before the execuing court on a number of hearings but later, when it was asked to deposite the amount, it filed certain applications which were decided by the Commissioner and in deciding those applications, these questions have been raised by the learned Commi-sioner for being referred to this Court for decision. 3. I have heard Mr. S.R. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Advani for non-petitioner No. 1 and Mr. B.L. Maheshwari for non-petitioner No. 2. 4. 3. I have heard Mr. S.R. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Advani for non-petitioner No. 1 and Mr. B.L. Maheshwari for non-petitioner No. 2. 4. S. 96(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that if after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-s.(4) of S. 95 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of S, 95 being a liability covered by the terms of the policy is obtained against any person insured by the policy then notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy the insurer shall subject to the provisions of this section to the person entitled, to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. It is, therefore, clear that any claim which has been decreed against an employer and if that claim relates to a policy issued by the Insurance Company then the Insurance Company is liable to pay that amount as a judgment-debtor to the extent aforesaid. S. 96(2) of the Act provides that no sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-S.(l) in respect of any judgment unless before or after the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment is given the insurer had notice through the Court of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of any judgment so long as execution is stayed there on pending an appeal and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the statutory grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of S. 96(2) of the Act. The Insurance Company, however, did not prefer to do so. It is no where provided that the petitioner should make the Insurance Company a party to the proceedings instituted by him in a claim preferred under Workmens Compensation Act. The Insurance Company, however, did not prefer to do so. It is no where provided that the petitioner should make the Insurance Company a party to the proceedings instituted by him in a claim preferred under Workmens Compensation Act. What is required by S. 96(2) of the Act is that a notice of such claim is to be given to the Company and if the Company so prefers, it can insist for becoming a party. That requirement of the law has been fulfilled in this case because in this case, not only the insurance Company was made a party but it was also issued a notice by the Court and after the notice was received by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company claimed in the reply filed by it that it is not a necessary or a proper party. In this view of the matter, even if the petitioner abon-doned their claim against the Insurance Company, it hardly matters because the essential requirement of the Act is that the Insurance Company must have a notice of the proceedings from the Court before it is called upon to honour its claim tinder the policy as a judgment-debtor. That requirement of law has been fulfilled and hence, simply because, the petitioners requested for the deletion of the name of the Insurance Company from the array of non-applicants hardly affects the liability of the Company to pay the amount on behalf of the insured judgment-debtor. That liability is arises on account of the responsibility of the Insurance Company to reimburse the employer judgment-debtor on account of the terms of a validly subsisting insurance policy in favour of the employer. The issuance of notice u/s 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been made obligatory only to ensure that the Insurance Company may be informed of such proceedings feeing taken against the insured employer so that it may be afforded with an opportunity to get itself impleaded as a party if it so desires or elects and if it applies to become a party, the Court is obliged to implead him as a party and after becoming a party, the Insurance Company can contest the claim on the basis of statutory defences available to it under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of S. 96 (2) of the Act. In these proceedings, the direction of the Court that the claim of the petitioners against the Insurance Company is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn was unnecessary surplusage. The Court need not have issued such a direction because what was prayed for by the applicant was that the name of the Insurance Company may be deleted from the array of the non-petitioners. That prayer does not mean that the petitioner has abondoned his claim against the insurance Company for any liability which arise against the Insurance Company under the Act and hence, the arguments of Mr. Maheshwari that as the petitioners have relinquished their claim against the Insurance Company has no legs to stand. In this respect, Mr. S.R. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mst. Kamla Devi Vs. Navind Kumar (1) wherein late Jagat Narayan, J. (as he then was) has held that a notice should be issued to the insurer and if it appears, it should be made a party. The order under the Workmens Compensation Act will be passed against the Employer, but by virtue of S. 95(1), the insurer will be treated as a judgment debtor for purposes of making recovery of compensation. With respect, I may say that if the insurer appears after the notice, it is entitled to be made a party to the proceedings under the Act, if it so elects. What is obligatory on the Court is to issue it a notice of the proceedings. It is not obligatory on the Court to implead the insurer as a party unless the insurer himself elects to do. The law only provides that it is entitled to be made a party and to defend the action on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses(a) to (c) of s. 96(2) of the Act. It is thus clear that it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to make the Insurance Company a party With this modification, I respectfully follow the dictum laid down by Honble Jagat Narayan, J. in Mst. Kamla Devis case (supra). 5. Nothing has been said before me about the validity of the notice issued by the Commissioner to the Insurance Company. It was also not disputed that the Insurance Company is a Corporation and hence, it cannot be said that it is a Slate or it is Union of India. Kamla Devis case (supra). 5. Nothing has been said before me about the validity of the notice issued by the Commissioner to the Insurance Company. It was also not disputed that the Insurance Company is a Corporation and hence, it cannot be said that it is a Slate or it is Union of India. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have submitted that the decision of the case will not require the decision of the fact whether all or special provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings under the Workmens Compensation Act. 6. In this view of the matter, I answer this reference as under: 1. It is not essential for the petitioner to implead the Insurance Company as a necessary party in the proceedings under Workmens Compensation Act in which they claim compensation against the Employer or if the Employer is insured then together with him against the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is not an employer and, therefore, it need not be impleaded as a necessary party to the proceedings in which the claim for compensation is made against the employer. The legal requirement is that the Court must issue a notice to the Insuranee Company and the Insurance Company is entitled to get itself impleaded as a party after the receipt of such a notice by it from the Court. 2. The Insurance Company is obliged to satisfy the decree passed against the employer as a judgment-debtor even if the petitioners have prayed for the deletion of its name from the array of the parties. 3. The notice dated 19.10.78 issued to the Insurance Company by the Commissioner fulfills all the requirements of the notice under s. 96(2) of the Act. 4. The decision of this question is not at all necessary and, therefore, I refrain from answering this question. 5. 3. The notice dated 19.10.78 issued to the Insurance Company by the Commissioner fulfills all the requirements of the notice under s. 96(2) of the Act. 4. The decision of this question is not at all necessary and, therefore, I refrain from answering this question. 5. S. 82 C. P. C. provides that if a decree is passed against the Union of India or a State as the case may be by the public officer, such decree shall not be executed except in accordance with the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 82 C. P. C. The Insurance Company is not the Union of India nor can it be termed to be a State and, therefore, s. 82 C. P. C. is not applicable to the Insurance Company because the Insurance Company is a Corporation still governed by the Insurance Act. 7. The reference is answered accordingly. Let the record of the case along-with a copy of the judgment be sent to the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation Act for passing necessary orders in the case.