( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 who are the parents, brother and sister of seenaiah (the deceased), who was working as a Security Guard/watchman in M/s. Sharat Sea Foods Limited, Ramalingapuram, nellore i. e. , 5th respondent, filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923 (the Act), before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nellore, alleging that the deceased while attending to his duties on 5. 11. 1995 slipped from the 'jetty' and fell into the sea at about 8. 30 a. m. and died and inasmuch as the death of the deceased occurred out of and during the course of his employment with the 5th respondent, 5th respondent and the appellant who is the insurer are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,68,000/-to them. ( 2 ) 5th respondent filed its counter inter alia contending that the deceased was appointed as Security Guard/watchman on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/- from 17. 6. 1995 and that the deceased while discharging his duties on 5. 11. 1995 accidentally slipped from the 'jetty' and fell into the sea and his dead body was found on the evening of 6. 11. 1995 and inasmuch as its employees are insured with the appellant the compensation, if any, has to be paid by the appellant. ( 3 ) APPELLANT filed its counter putting the respondents 1 to 4 to proof of the averments in the petition and about the employment of the deceased with the 5th respondent, his age and salary. ( 4 ) IN support of their case respondents 1 to 4 examined, first respondent as P. W. 1, the Finance Manager of the 5th respondent company as P. W. 2 and marked Exs. A. 1 and A. 2. 5th respondent did not adduce any evidence on its behalf. Appellant examined one witness as R. W. 1 and marked exs. B. 1 to B. 5. ( 5 ) THE Commissioner held that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased occurred out of and during the course of employment of the deceased with the 5th respondent and rejecting the contention of the appellant that the Ex. B. 1 insurance policy issued by it does not cover the risk of Security Guards, and covers the risk of Watchman and Gate Keepers only, directed the 5th respondent and the appellant to pay Rs. B. 1 insurance policy issued by it does not cover the risk of Security Guards, and covers the risk of Watchman and Gate Keepers only, directed the 5th respondent and the appellant to pay Rs. 1,68,336/- as compensation to respondents 1 to 4. Aggrieved thereby the insurer preferred this appeal. ( 6 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that inasmuch as the policy of insurance issued by the appellant covers the risk of the persons mentioned therein but does not cover the risk of security Guards who are not mentioned in the list of covered employees, the Tribunal was in error in making the appellant also liable to pay the compensation payable to the respondents 1 to 4. It is his contention that merely because the scale of pay of the security Guard and Watchman is one and the same, the Tribunal erred in holding that security Guard and Watchman are one and the same though the Attendance Register shows only two watchmen and several security Guards were employed by the 5th respondent, and the Attendance Register itself shows the distinction between the security Guards and Watchmen. ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 is that since the duties of the Security Guard and the watchman are the same, and since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, the appeal is not maintainable, and relied on Management, boys Town Society v. V. Palani, 1998 acj 559, in support of the contention that the appeal is not maintainable and contended that as the Act is a Social Welfare legislation intended to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased workman dying out of and during the course of employment, appellant who undertook to cover the risk of the employees of the 5th respondent cannot avoid its liability. ( 8 ) THE point for consideration is whether the Ex. B. 1 policy covers the risk of the deceased or not? ( 9 ) BEFORE taking up the point for consideration the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 that the appeal is not maintainable has to be considered. ( 10 ) V. Palani's case (supra), relied on by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 has no application to the facts of this case. ( 9 ) BEFORE taking up the point for consideration the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 that the appeal is not maintainable has to be considered. ( 10 ) V. Palani's case (supra), relied on by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 has no application to the facts of this case. In that case, the Commissioner, on the basis of the evidence adduced before him, held on the question whether the deceased workman in that case was a 'workman' employed by Society or not, held that he was a 'workman' and awarded compensation. Questioning the same an appeal was preferred. In the appeal, the learned Judge held that as the question whether a victim in an accident is a 'workman' under the Act or not is but a pure question of fact, dismissed the appeal preferred by the Society on the ground that no question of law arises for determination by him. In this case the status of the deceased being a 'workman' under the provisions of the Act is not in dispute. The question is whether the Ex. B. 1 insurance policy covers the risk of Security Guards or not. Under Ex. B. 1 the appellant undertook to cover the risk of 118 employees of the 5th respondent i. e. , 26 Office Staff; 45 Farm Workers and Drivers; 18 Elec. Gene. Other Mech. Staff; 4 Watchmen and gate Keepers; 3 Cooks and Mess Workers; 3 Purchase Staff; 18 Engineering Diploma holders Tech. Staff; and one Tailor. So no security Guard is covered by Ex. B. 1. If the deceased was a Security Guard, appellant is not liable, but, if the deceased was a watchman or Gate Keeper, since 4 watchmen and Gate Keepers are covered by Ex. B. 1 policy, appellant also would be liable to pay the compensation. In this case the Tribunal, without discussing anything about the nature of the Job or the duties that were to be performed by the deceased, observed that inasmuch as the G. O. Ms. No. 37 dated 24. 2. 1992 lays down that categories of Watchman and Security Guard are the same and as the wages fixed for the nature of the duties are the same, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation payable to respondents 1 to 4. No. 37 dated 24. 2. 1992 lays down that categories of Watchman and Security Guard are the same and as the wages fixed for the nature of the duties are the same, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation payable to respondents 1 to 4. So the question of law in this case is whether the appellant can be made liable to pay compensation to a workman, whose risk it did not undertake to cover, on the basis of g. O. Ms. No. 37, dated 24. 2. 1992. ( 11 ) G. O. Ms. No. 37, dated 24. 2. 1992, was issued under Section 3 (1) and Section 5 (2)of the Minimum Wages Act, which empower the Government to fix minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in any of the employments specified in Part-I or Part-II of the schedules appended to that Act and in any employment added to either Part of notification under Section 27, and prescribes the minimum rates of wages payable to several classes of employees mentioned therein and lays down that the particular class of employees mentioned in that particular serial number are entitled to the wages mentioned therein. Merely because the said G. O. prescribes the minimum wage for certain categories of employees in a particular field of employment, it cannot be taken to mean that inasmuch as their nature of work is the same they are placed in the same category. For example item No. 4 of the said G. O. relates to minimum wages payable to Cold Storage Supervisor, Junior executive/refrigeration Technician/assistant chemist, a Bason/assistant Accounts officer. The minimum wages for all those is fixed at Rs. 1,285/ -. If the owner of the cold Storage insures the risk of for Cold storage Supervisor only, but not the junior Executive, merely because the Cold storage Supervisor and Junior Executive are placed in the same serial number of the above notification, if a Junior Executive becomes a victim of an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment, he cannot claim compensation from the insurer, merely on the ground that his employer took a policy to cover the risk of Cold Storage Supervisor, who is placed in the same serial number in which he is placed in G. O. Ms. No. 37, dated 24. 2. 1992. No. 37, dated 24. 2. 1992. So merely because 'watchman' and 'security Guard' are mentioned in Serial no. 22 of the said G. O. , the insurer, who did not undertake to cover the risk of a security Guard, cannot made liable to pay compensation for the risk of the victim security Guard merely because it undertook to cover the risk of 'watchman' on the ground that the Security Guard and watchman are mentioned in Item No. 22 of the notification. ( 12 ) EX. B. 5 Attendance Register shows that there are two Watchmen and 19 security Guards in the 5th respondent. Ex. B1 policy of Insurance shows that 4 Watchmen and 7 Gate Keepers are covered by the insurance, but no Security Guards are covered. So, in my considered opinion, ex. B. 1 does not cover the risk of the security Guards, and so, I hold that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants. ( 13 ) BY the order dated 24. 4. 2000 in cmp No. 7189 of 2000 a learned Judge permitted the claimants to withdraw half of the amount deposited by the Insurance company. Since it would cause hardship to respondents 1 to 4 if they are now directed to repay the amount withdrawn by them, the appellant is directed to recover the amount withdrawn by respondents 1 to 4 from the employer of the deceased i. e. , the 5th respondent. The balance respondents 1 to 4 can proceed against the 5th respondent. ( 14 ) ONE of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 is that 5th respondent is a sick company, it would be difficult for respondents 1 to 4 to recover the balance from it. 5th respondent being a sick company, it is not of consequence because the wages and compensation payable to its employees will have precedence. So, merely because respondents 1 to 4 may have difficulty in recovering the compensation from the 5th respondent, the appellant, who did not undertake to cover the risk of the deceased, cannot be made liable to pay the compensation claimed by them. The point is answered accordingly. ( 15 ) THEREFORE, the appeal is allowed and the claim against the appellant stands dismissed. The point is answered accordingly. ( 15 ) THEREFORE, the appeal is allowed and the claim against the appellant stands dismissed. But, as stated earlier, the appellant can recover the amount withdrawn by the claimants from the employer of the deceased- 5th respondent. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal.