JUDGMENT : MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Government Advocate for the appellants as well as Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellants have challenged the Judgment & Award dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation Act, in W.C. Case No. 1/2017 by which, compensation amount of Rs. 8,30,922/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident, has been awarded to the respondents due to the death of the husband of the respondent No. 1. 3. The appellants' counsel submits that the husband of the respondent No. 1 was appointed and employed as a Cook in the Tourism Department under the Government of Mizoram, on Muster Roll basis. Vide office Order No. 60 of 2015-2016 dated 19.6.15, the deceased was detailed to proceed on official duty to Tuirial Airfield on 20.06.2015 to oversee safety of Departmental buildings and also to clean the compound of the Tourism building in Tuirial Airfield. The deceased went to Tuirial Airfield and did the work assigned to him as per the office Order No. 60 of 2015 - 2016. While coming back to Aizawl from Tuirial Airfield on 20.06.2015 at around 2:00 RM, the vehicle which was driven by the deceased fell from the side of the road, while overtaking one truck bearing Registration No. MZ-02-9844. 4. The respondents, who are the wife and children of the deceased filed W.C. Case No. 1/2017, claiming compensation under the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923, which was later replaced by the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. After evidence had been taken, W.C. Case No. 1/2017 was disposed of by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, vide Judgment & Award dated 15.03.2018, by awarding compensation of Rs. 8,30,922 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident. 5. The appellants' counsel submits that the deceased not being an "employee" under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, there was no ground for the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, to have awarded compensation payable by the appellants. He also submits that the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation did not make a clear finding, as to whether the deceased was an employee, who could come within the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. He accordingly prays that the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, to take a fresh decision in the matter. 6. Mrs. He also submits that the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation did not make a clear finding, as to whether the deceased was an employee, who could come within the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. He accordingly prays that the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, to take a fresh decision in the matter. 6. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made by the appellants' counsel. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. Section 2(1)(dd) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, states as follows: "[(dd) "employee" means a person, who is- (i) a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II; or (ii) (a) a master, seaman or other member of the crew of a ship, (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft, (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle, (d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company, and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India; or (iii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, and any reference to any employee who has been injured shall, where the employee is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them;]" 9. Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 provides for the employer's liability to pay compensation, if personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment 10. Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 provides for the employer's liability to pay compensation, if personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment 10. In the present case, the question of whether the deceased was an employee as per the definition of the "employee", as provided in Section 2(1)(dd) and Schedule II of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, would have to be first decided by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Aizawl. It is only after a finding to the effect that the deceased was an employee within the meaning of Section 2(1)(dd) is made, can the Commissioner decide on the quantum of payment of compensation payable to the respondents. However, para 10 of the impugned Judgment & Award dated 15.3.2018, states that the deceased was injured as a IV Grade (MR) from the year 2015 under the Tourism Department and he earned a monthly salary of Rs. 7,750/-. The Commissioner thereafter, came to a finding that the deceased was a Workman within the meaning of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The finding of the Commissioner is not based on any reason. It is settled law that a finding has to be based on some reason. The definition of employee given in the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, and the definition of Workman given in the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 have clearly spelt out the persons who would come within the definition of the term 'employee' and 'workman'. It may be mentioned that the definition of workman and employee are the same, as per the 2 above Acts. However, as the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Aizawl, has not given any reason as to how the deceased can be termed to be a 'workman' or 'employee' under the aforesaid 2 (two) Acts, the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Aizawl, is directed to take a fresh decision with regard to whether the deceased was an employee under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Consequently, the impugned Judgment & Award dated 15.03.2018 passed in W.C. Case No. 1/2017 is hereby set aside. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellants have already given the compensation amount of Rs. 8,30,922/- to the respondents and the respondents have made a claim for payment of the interest amount with the Commissioner. Consequently, the impugned Judgment & Award dated 15.03.2018 passed in W.C. Case No. 1/2017 is hereby set aside. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellants have already given the compensation amount of Rs. 8,30,922/- to the respondents and the respondents have made a claim for payment of the interest amount with the Commissioner. In view of the reasons stated above, the question of whether the respondents would have to pay back the amount already given to them would depend upon the fresh decision to be taken by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Aizawl, which should be done not later than 3 (three) months from today. Till a decision is taken by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Aizawl, there will be no question of payment of interest to the respondents by the appellants. 12. Appeal is accordingly allowed.