Judgment 1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. These appeals can be disposed of by the common judgment as the same issues are involved. The proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “Act of 1923”) were filed by the legal representatives of two employees who died in the same accident. 2. It is undisputed that the appellant had undertaken the job on contract basis from the respondent no.2. It is undisputed that the deceased employees were employed by the appellant. It is undisputed that the deceased employees died in the pump house situated at the work place where the deceased employees were required to work. It is undisputed that the employees died during the working hours. 3. The issue raised by the appellant in these appeals is that the deceased employees died because of suffocation on account of their own negligence and while sleeping in the pump house and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accident had arisen out of and in the course of the employment as contemplated by Section 3 of the Act of 1923. 4. This Court while admitting the appeals formulated the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the accident arose during the course and out of the employment of the deceased on 27/6/2002, within the meaning of section 3(b)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? (2) Whether the appellant was a necessary party to the proceeding before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner? 5. Shri Kukday, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the deceased employees were appointed as Watchman and their duty was to keep vigil at night. It is submitted that on 27th June, 2002 there were heavy rains and the deceased employees had shut the windows and doors of the pump house, had stacked gunny bags and slept and they died due to suffocation. It is submitted that the deceased employees suffered death because of the negligence on their part and while sleeping, instead of performing their duty and, therefore, it cannot be said that they suffered death in an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. Considering the admitted situation which prevailed on the night when the incident took place, it cannot be said that the deceased employees were not performing their duties or that the claimants are not entitled for the compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1923. Considering the admitted situation which prevailed on the night when the incident took place, it cannot be said that the deceased employees were not performing their duties or that the claimants are not entitled for the compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1923. This Court by the judgment given in the case of Conservator of Forests, Nagpur and another V/s. Kusumtai wd/o Ganpatrao Dhote and others reported at 2013(5) SCC 102 has granted compensation to the legal heirs of Forest Guard whose dead body was found in the forest. After examining the law on the issue this Court has recorded its findings in paragraph no.14 of the judgment as follows: “14. Keeping in mind the above principles, it would be appropriate to examine whether in the instant case the above principles could be applied. It is not in dispute that deceased Ganpat was in the employment of the appellant/Forest Department for about 20 years as a Forest Guard. Undoubtedly, he is a workman. On the fateful day, he went in his uniform for patroling in Edsamba forest on his motor cycle and his dead body was traced after two days and the post-mortem report shows findings of homicidal death. The fact that, on the dead body, a belt was found with emboss of forest department clearly corroborated the fact that the deceased was performing his duty in the deep forest. The Commissioner has recorded a finding that there was no difficulty in holding that death was homicidal in the light of serious injuries, with which I also agree. But the question is whether the same was arising out of and in the course of employment. Even if it is established that Ganpat was murdered in the forest, the burden to show that deceased Ganpat invited peril and he himself was responsible for the incident of murder was on the forest department. But, the appellant did not either plead or prove the said case. It will have to be, therefore, clearly found that Ganpat had gone to forest for duty as usual and he was murdered by some unidentified persons. Had he not gone to attend his duty in the forest, the incident would not have occurred. That leads me to hold that it is the incident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Had he not gone to attend his duty in the forest, the incident would not have occurred. That leads me to hold that it is the incident arising out of and in the course of his employment. ” The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the judgment given in the case of Usha Bai and Yogendra Singh reported at 2002 III LLJ 87 has laid down that the burden of proving that the accident had not occurred in the course of employment was on the employer. In the present case it being an admitted position that there were heavy rains on the night when the incident had occurred, the burden was on the appellant to plead and prove that the deceased employees could have taken shelter at some place other than the pump house. The material brought on the record by the appellant is not sufficient to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant that the deceased employees died of suffocation because of the negligence on their part. In view of this, I answer the issue accordingly holding that the deceased employees died in an accident which can be said to have arisen out of and during the course of the employment. 6. Shri V.S. Kukday, the learned advocate has submitted that the learned Commissioner has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by Section 19 of the Act of 1923 by not deciding the question as to whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation or the liability is of the Insurance Company. Section 19 of the Act of 1923 provides that the Commissioner shall decide the question which arises for consideration regarding the liability of any person to pay compensation. It cannot be said that Section 19 of the Act of 1923 casts an obligation on the Commissioner to decide inter se liability to pay the compensation viz-a-viz the employer and the Insurance Company. The Act of 1923 is enacted to enable the employees to claim the compensation and it being beneficial Legislation, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1923 cannot be interpreted in a manner which would result in multiplicity and protraction of proceedings. The Act of 1923 is enacted to enable the employees to claim the compensation and it being beneficial Legislation, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1923 cannot be interpreted in a manner which would result in multiplicity and protraction of proceedings. It cannot be said that the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1923 cast an obligation on the Commissioner to decide the dispute between the employer/contractor and the Insurance Company and if it is permitted then the proceedings would be prolonged which would result in delay in awarding the amount of compensation to the claimant and it would frustrate the object of the Enactment. Though in a given case, the learned Commissioner may, if felt necessary decide the issue. 7. In the present case this issue will not arise also inasmuch as the Contractor has already made a claim against the Insurance Company under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and it is pending in appeal. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.