1. Petitioner-Company engaged in General Insurance business has extended Group Personal Accident Policy Cover (Group Insurance) in respect of twenty un named labourers of M/S Sodhi Agro Industries Ltd. Kadalbal Pampore (Kmr) of district Pulwama-Respondent No.3 to cover the Personal Accident risks to each labour for a sum of Rs. One lakh. During the subsistence of this insurance cover, two labourers Tilak Bahadur and Om Bahadur of the employer respondent No.3 died by accident of drowing in River Jehlum during the course of their appointment. One Ram Bahadur representative of all Indias Nepalese Society, respondent No.2 filed an application for compensation before the commissioner appointed under section 20 o the Workmans Compensation Act. Besides the employer the Writ petitioner Insurance Company was also impleaded as a party. The Commissioner passed an award on 17-1-2001 requiring the petitioner, company to deposit two lakhs rupees, (One lakh each for the deceased labourer) and against the employer respondent No.2.further award Rs. 50,000/-(Rs.25000/- for each of the deceased labourer too. This award is impugned in this writ petition in main on the ground that the award has been passed without jurisdiction, as the application moved before the Commissioner is not filed by any of the dependents of the deceased labourers and secondly the Insurance Company was not liable under the Personal Accident Insurance Policy Scheme to compensate the dependents of the deceased labourers. The procedure prescribed under the policy for claiming the insurance dues from the company itself has not been followed. 2. An application is moved before the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act and rule framed there under for Compensation in respect of death of two workmen by accident arising out of and during the course of their employment against their employer respondent No 2 and the Insurance Company for indemnification of the insurer. Their liability arises the moment the death as above has occasioned. The question raised is, if the award in the proceedings under the Workmens Compensation Act can be given by the Commissioner. No agreement in the form of Group Personal Accident Policy is pointed out to the court to show that the settlement of the question cannot be by the Commissioner under the Act. The question raised is, if the award in the proceedings under the Workmens Compensation Act can be given by the Commissioner. No agreement in the form of Group Personal Accident Policy is pointed out to the court to show that the settlement of the question cannot be by the Commissioner under the Act. Under the Workmens Compensation Act and the rules framed there under, there is no bar to a representative of the deceased or the dependent from moving the Commissioner for determining/assessing the actual amount of compensation to be deposited in respect of the deceased workmen, before the commissioner, for apportionment among the dependents of deceased workmen. The impugned award only determines Compensation and directs its deposit in terms and on conditions of the provisions of the Act. The impugned judgment no where states that the amounts so deposited is to be taken away by the applicant or some unauthorized person. Rather the award states that the amount is to be given to the dependents of the deceased workmen Such a course for deposit of compensation on determination, to be followed by subsequent apportionment/distribution of compensation amongst the dependents of the deceased workmen is fully covered by the provision of the Act. 3. Notice is also taken of the fact that the petitioner Insurance Company is a party to the application/proceedings before the Commissioner under the Act. No objection as to jurisdiction has been taken before the Commissioner. The petitioner has been set exparte and evidence recorded by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has held the Insurance copy as indemnifier liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased workmen to the extent of Rs.2 lacs and the employer to the extent of Rs.50000/-(to be shared equally by the dependents of deceased workmen). Against this award despite the appeal being provided under section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, the aggrieved party has not opted to file to appeal. Despite such alternatives remedy petitioner Insurance Co. has not taken recourse to the remedy of Appeal. To mention that the petitioner Company did "not choose to file appeal on the assumption that the award is just an ipsi dixit of the Commissioner appointed under Workmens Compensation Act, would barely suffice, in the facts and circumstances of the case to hold the writ maintainable without resort to alternatives efficatious remedy of appeal. 4. In result, writ petition is dismissed in limine.