JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal by the insurer u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The substantial question of law involved in this case is whether the compensation has been awarded fixing the liability on the insurer after observing the principles of natural justice. 3. In view of this short question, the facts on the basis of which compensation has been awarded need not be enumerated. 4. There is no dispute that the Commissioner under the Act is to dispose of the claims judicially. It is a Tribunal being a creature of the Act. Since the order is appealable, not only that the same is to be a reasoned one but also the stages of the proceeding shall be recorded separately in order-sheet. Fairness of such authority and observance of the principle of natural justice can be inferred on perusal of the same. In case the materials on record would justify such observance, non-mention of the proceeding in the order-sheet in a particular manner may not by itself be sufficient to draw inference otherwise. All that is necessary is that the authority shall not be hasty, must have application of mind at each stage which can be spelt, out from the record. 5. In this case, an order sheet has been maintained. On 17-8-1987 the application for compensation was filed whereunder the following order was passed: Ask the opposite party to furnish information regarding the monthly wage and allowances drawn by Shri Babuli Pradhan prior to accident in Truck No. ORX 67014 on the 14th May, 1987, besides the age, name and address of the Insurance Company where the said truck was insured and policy number. A copy of this order was served on the owner of the vehicle (Respondent No. 2). There is no indication in the notice fixing a time limit for furnishing the information required. There is also no indication that the owner can contest the claim if so advised. Records do not disclose that the owner had earlier intimated the commissioner regarding the accidents and has admitted that the injuries were sustained by the claimant in course of his employment. There is no other recording of any stage of the proceeding in the order sheet after the directions call for the information. Records do not disclose that the owner had earlier intimated the commissioner regarding the accidents and has admitted that the injuries were sustained by the claimant in course of his employment. There is no other recording of any stage of the proceeding in the order sheet after the directions call for the information. The order was passed on 20 8 1987 treating the information supplied to be the written statement. A perusal of the letter of the owner would indicate that he supplied the informations only and did not admit that the injuries were sustained in course of employment. The claimant has also not been given any chance either to accept or deny the facts informed. The commissioner was hasty in making the award for compensation without giving opportunity to any party to be heard in the matter. Liability of the insurer has been fixed without giving him a chance to repudiate or accept the information relating to the insurance or its liability. The policy was also not before the commissioner wherefrom he could have spelt out the liability of the insurer. 6. If this would have been the only defect, I would have only set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the commissioner for fresh hearing to give opportunity to the parties to be heard. I find that the objection to the award filed by the appellant on one of the grounds that it did not receive the notice was rejected on the ground that the same is a pretext to delay payment of compensation. Commissioner ought to have taken note that any liability fixed on a person without giving opportunity to him to have his say in a nullity and even earlier admission would not frustrate such statutory principle in a republic governed by rule of law since admission can always be explained and unless opportunity is given there is no scope for explaining the admission. Added to, I find that the order sheet maintained by the commissioner is prepared under the Orissa Records Manual. I can draw an inference that the said Manual also governs the Commissioner. There is provision for grant of certified copy of orders passed. Since no certified copy was granted appellant had to approach this Court for issue of a writ whereafter certified copy was supplied on 27-10-1987. I can draw an inference that the said Manual also governs the Commissioner. There is provision for grant of certified copy of orders passed. Since no certified copy was granted appellant had to approach this Court for issue of a writ whereafter certified copy was supplied on 27-10-1987. Added to it I find the draft of a notice dated 22-5-1987 on record calling upon the claimant to adduce preliminary evidence on 26-8-1987 at 11 A.M. Evidence of the claimant was recorded on 24-8-1987. These infirmities lead as to conclude that the officer exercising the power of commissioner if is holding the office now should not hear the matter any further. 7. I am conscious that the provisions of the Act are benevolent for the benefit of workman. Delay may cause injustice to the workman injured in case he is entitled to compensation. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the commissioner to send a copy of this order to the appropriate authority to meet the power of the commissioner on another officer in case the officer who passed the impugned award is still exercising the power of the com missioner so that within one month of the receipt of record by the com missioner, an officer duly vested with power can hear the same. I also direct the parties to appear before the commissioner on 11-4-1988 (Monday) when the date of hearing shall be fixed. Objection to the claim if any shall be filed on 11-4-1988 itself. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed Since it is a benevolent statute, I direct the appellant to pay a cost of Rs. 150/- (one hundred fifty) to the claimant-respondent No. 1 in the peculiar circumstances of this case since he is not at fault for the award being set aside. The cost shall be paid by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this Court within 15 days to the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1. Once the case is taken-up by a commissioner duly appointed the proceeding shall be con cluded within three months. I have no doubt that the appropriate authority shall pass order within one month of receipt of a copy of the order from the commissioner so that the workman would not suffer for a prolonged litigation.