JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan C.J. (Oral): Respondents No.2 to 6 are deleted by learned counsel for the petitioner from the record. " 2. The learned Advocate General took notice for the respondent. We have heard both sides. 3. The respondent passed an award under the provisions of the Workmans Compensation Act against M/s Kishan Singh and Company Private Ltd. in favour of Smt. Pano and three others. The claimants before the respondent were the legal representatives of one deceased Shri Chand, who died in an accident in the course of employment under M/s Kishan Singh and company. The respondent passed an award for a sum of Rs. 59,820/- on 13.11.1993. laspite of a direction to the said M/s Kishan Singh and Company to deposit the awarded amount within a period of one month, the company did not deposit the amount. Consequently, the respondent passed another order on 12.6.1994, which appears to be in a proceeding from execution filed by the claimants. It is seen from the cause title found in the order that it was an execution petition and it was filed on 25.3.1994 and the order was passed on 12.6.1994, as aforesaid. By the said order, the respondent held that the Company was liable to pay the penalty at the rate of 50% of the awarded amount and interest at the rate of 6% from the date of award under the provisions of Section 4-A of the Act. Consequently; an amended Award was passed for Rs. 91, 525/-. The respondent directed a copy of the award to be sent to M/s Kishan Singh Company with direction to them to deposit the amount with one month. 4. However in the said order in the last paragraph, the respondent issued the following direction: "A copy of this award also sent to the General Manager, NHPC Chamera Project at Dalhousie who shall not release any security and other funds I due to the respondent company working under him and deposit the awarded amount after deduction from his funds with this court within a month." 5. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent on 16.7.1994 drawing his attention to an earlier letter dated 28.2.1994 with which a sum of Rs. 4, 00,000/- was deposited towards the compensation to the legal heirs. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent on 16.7.1994 drawing his attention to an earlier letter dated 28.2.1994 with which a sum of Rs. 4, 00,000/- was deposited towards the compensation to the legal heirs. It is also stated in the said letter that the petitioner owed no amount whatever to M/s Kishan Singh and Company and. therefore, no amount can be deposited. On the other hand, the petitioner was to realise some amount from the said Company in connection with the contract for construction of Koti Bridge. 6. It is seen from the letter dated 28.2.1994 written by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner that .a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- sent in the form of demand draft along with that letter related to compensation payable by M/s Kishan Singh and Company to 16 families of persons, who died in an accident at Koti Bridge, ii was also a complaint by the petitioner that in spite of several requests and reminders, the said Company had not paid the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. 7. Therefore, the respondent sent a communication to the petitioner requesting him to state whether any appeal had been filed against the award and if there was an appeal, he should be apprised of the same within 15 days, otherwise the amount of award will be disbursed to the claimants. To that, a reply was sent by the petitioner pointing out that an appeal/writ petition would be filed against the award as nothing is payable by the petitioner to the claimants in the proceeding before the respondent. The respondent was also requested not to release any amount to the wife of the deceased out of the amount of Rs, 4,00,000 - deposited along with the letter dated 28.2.1994. The respondent was also requested not to release any amount of the wife of the deceased out of the amount of Rs. 4, 00,000/-deposited along with the letter dated 28.2.1994. 8. At that stage, the petitioner has come with this writ petition. The respondent was also requested not to release any amount of the wife of the deceased out of the amount of Rs. 4, 00,000/-deposited along with the letter dated 28.2.1994. 8. At that stage, the petitioner has come with this writ petition. The short contention of the petitioner is that it was not a party to the award passed by the respondent against M/s Kishan Singh and Company and even at the time of execution, the petitioner was not made a party and no notice was given to the petitioner before the direction contained in the order dated 12.6.1994 was issued to the petitioner. It is also the contention of the petitioner that no amount is due to die said M/s Kishan Singh and Company by the petitioner. 9. The learned Advocate General submits that the order dated 12.6.1994 would be an award against the petitioner within the meaning of Section 30 of the Act and an appeal would lie against the same. We are unable to accept this contention. In our opinion, the award is only that passed on 13.11.1993 against M/s Kishan Singh and Company and the amended award is also only against M/s Kishan Singh and Company. The first three paragraphs of the order dated 12.6.1994 passed in the execution proceeding are directed against M/s Kishan Singh and Company and it is only those paragraphs, which can be treated as an award against the said company. The last paragraph of the said order dated 12.6.1994 would only amount if at all to a garnishee order passed against the petitioner herein that it cannot be termed as award within the meaning of Section 30 of the Act. 10. Inasmuch as the last paragraph of the order dated 12.6.1994 is passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent as to whether any amount is due from the petitioner to the Company, namely, M/s Kishan Singh and Company, the said order is not sustainable. Consequently, the last paragraph of the order dated 12.6.1994 passed by the respondent as against the petitioner herein is quashed and the respondent is directed to give notice to the petitioner and hear the petitioner before passing any order like garnishee order as against the petitioner. Consequently, the last paragraph of the order dated 12.6.1994 passed by the respondent as against the petitioner herein is quashed and the respondent is directed to give notice to the petitioner and hear the petitioner before passing any order like garnishee order as against the petitioner. The respondent may enquire and decide whether any amount is due from the petitioner to M/s Kishan Singh and Company Private Ltd. and pass an appropriate order thereafter. Till the matter is decided by the respondent, as directed by us above, no amount shall be disbursed out of the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the Deputy Commissioner to the claimants pursuant to the award passed as against M/s Kishan Singh and Company on 13.11.1993 and amended by order dated 12.6.1994. 11. With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.