JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Ms. M Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company. None appears for the respondent claimant. 2. In response to the order, dated 05.09.2019, it has been stated by Ms. M Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that by an earlier order, dated 13.05.2019, the appellants were allowed to make the paper publication of the notice which had already been made. 3. In view of such submission, we are of the view that no further paper publication is required in this case. To that extent, an affidavit is also filed enclosing the newspaper containing the notice of service. Accordingly, we accept that notice on the said respondent had been served. 4. The respondent workman was employed as a cleaner/ handyman in the vehicle bearing No. AS 17/2421. On 19.05.2005, while the said bus was traveling from Bilasipara towards Dhubri, the respondent who was under employment was required to unload the goods from the roof of the bus and in doing so, he fell down from the roof along with goods and as a result, sustained injuries of compound fracture in his left thigh resulting in permanent disablement. 5. The claimant in his deposition before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation stated that at the time when the incident took place, he was employed as a cleaner/handyman in the vehicle concerned and his salary was Rs.1500/- per month. The owner of the vehicle also entered appearance and filed written statement admitting the employment as well as the salary of the workman concerned. 6. The Commissioner by its Judgment, dated 16.10.2006 had awarded a compensation amounting to Rs.3,54,708/- along with an interest of 9% per annum. Against the said judgment of the Commissioner, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant insurance company on the ground that there was no evidence of the doctor as regards the loss of earning capacity of the respondent workman and the Commissioner took it upon himself to make an assessment of the earning capacity. 7. To substantiate the submission, Ms. Against the said judgment of the Commissioner, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant insurance company on the ground that there was no evidence of the doctor as regards the loss of earning capacity of the respondent workman and the Commissioner took it upon himself to make an assessment of the earning capacity. 7. To substantiate the submission, Ms. Choudhury relies upon a pronouncement of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sanjit Kumar, (2000) 2 GauLT 567 , wherein it was held that the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for the mode and method to determine the percentage of loss of earning capacity but the power to so determine is not available with the Commissioner. 8. By following the said proposition of law laid down by this Court, we cannot but take the view that the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation did not have the jurisdiction and authority to determine the loss of earning capacity. As in the instant Judgment the loss of earning capacity was assessed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act and not through any medical evidence, we are of the view that such assessment of the loss of earning capacity by the Commissioner would be unsustainable. In such view of the matter, award of compensation is also required to be interfered with. 9. But we are told that at the time prior to the filing of the appeal, the entire amount of compensation of Rs.3,54,708/- was deposited by the insurance company with the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Dhubri and without there being any appropriate order by the appellate Court, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation had allowed the workman to withdraw the entire amount. After receiving the amount, the workman is neither responding to the notice of this Court nor had appeared even after the paper publication was made. 10. In such view of the matter, due to non appearance of the workman and further the fact that the entire amount that was deposited had already been withdrawn, we are of the view that it will be futile to remand the matter back to the Commissioner for assessment of the loss of earning capacity of the workman in the manner provided by law. However, again considering the conduct of the workman that the entire money was withdrawn without any order of the Court and having not appeared in this proceeding any further, we are of the view that no further amount is required to be paid by the insurance company to the workman and by providing so, the appeal stands closed. 11. We are constrained to observe that the particular Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, DC Mazumdar had been involved in many other cases where the entire amount was allowed to be withdrawn without there being any order from any Court and upon it happening, the workman after withdrawing the entire amount had not resurfaced to appear before the appellate proceedings. The Commissioner and Secretary in the Labour Department, Government of Assam shall look into the matter and take appropriate action under the law against the Commissioner concerned and also examine as to in what manner the grievances of the insurance company can be addressed.