JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - All these four appeals arise out of common judgment dated 24.09.2012 involving W.C. Case Nos.2/2007, 3/2007, 4/2007 & 5/2007 being decided by Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jeypore in common hearing of four claim applications. Claim applications involved death of four labourers involving a proceeding under Workmen's' Compensation Act, 1923. Common pleading is advanced that all the four deceased labourers while moving in a tractor and trolley bearing Registration Nos.OR-10E-1203/1204 claiming to be working as labourers involving a Self Help Group, the O.P.1 therein, suffered death in course of their employment in the tractor involved herein. On receipt of the claim, notices being issued, Insurance Company-O.P.2 therein appeared. However owner-O.P.1 therein did not appear. This Court finds, in spite of notice from the High Court, the owner also did not appear here. It is observed that O.P.1 remained noncooperative all through. The Insurance Company on its appearance while disputing the claim on behalf of the claimants involving the accident involving in course of and arising out of employment also disclaimed the liability. Basing on the pleading, the Commissioner framed the following issues : ISSUES (1) Whether the deceased in W.C. Case No.2/07 to 5/07 were 'workman' within the meaning of W.C. Act, 1923 and working under the O.Ps.? (2) Whether the deceased in W.C. Case No.2/07 to 5/07 met with accident arising out of and in course of their employment? (3) What was the age and monthly wage of the deceased in W.C. Case No.2/07 to 5/07 at the time of accident? (4) What is the quantum of compensation payable and who is liable to pay? 2. Parties in contest enter into evidence. It appears, the claimants examined four witnesses, whereas O.P.2, the Insurance Company examined its Deputy Manager, who appeared as OPW 2. Basing on the materials brought on record and the pleadings as well as evidence, the Commissioner disposed of all the four claim cases by a common judgment directed as follows: "ORDER The claim of the applicants for compensation under the W.C. Act, 1923 is allowed against the O.Ps., M/s. Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Co. Basing on the materials brought on record and the pleadings as well as evidence, the Commissioner disposed of all the four claim cases by a common judgment directed as follows: "ORDER The claim of the applicants for compensation under the W.C. Act, 1923 is allowed against the O.Ps., M/s. Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Janpath, Bapujee Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist.Khurda being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,86,763/- each in W.C. Case No.2/2007, 3/2007 & 4/2007 and a sum of Rs.1,84,800/- in W.C.Case No.5/2007 aggregating to Rs.7,45,089/- in this court within 30 days from the date of judgment for onward disbursement to the applicants." 3. Assailing the common judgment involving all these four cases, filing all these four appeals, the Insurance Company challenged the judgment on the ground that there never exists employer and employee relationship. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that though the workmen policy is admitted, but the same had covered only the driver of the tractor, therefore, there is no liability on the head of the Insurance Company. It is also claimed that there being no required premium paid for covering labourers involving the Workmen Policy, the labourers in spite of their death, cannot be covered under such policy. It is also being claimed that the driver driving the tractor was not having a driving licence at the relevant point of time. Further the tractor though was utilized for commercial purpose, there was no licence or authorized permission for having such use by the owner. 4. Taking this Court to the discussion on the plea of the Insurance Company as well as the materials brought through evidence by the parties, in respect of Issue Nos.(1) and (2) and Issue No.(4), an attempt is made to satisfy the Court that in spite there being a clear recording by the Commissioner to the extent that the President, SHG Group, O.P.1, is employer and engaged the deceased labourers, there was no occasion for the Workman's Compensation Commissioner in discarding the objection of the Insurance Company as well as evidence, also found recorded against Issue No.(4). It is in the above circumstance and for there is no establishing of case by the claimants negotiating employer and employee relationship that too covering of such claims on account of workman and employer relationship through the policy referred to Commissioner come to a conclusion holding all these labourers are workmen under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act and thus entitling them to the compensation as awarded therein. In the above background, Mr.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, appellant prayed this Court for interfering in the impugned judgment and setting aside the same. 5. In his opposition, Mr.D.R.Bhokta, learned counsel appearing for the claimants on reiteration of the claimants' plea as well as evidence led by claimants and as found place against Issue Nos.(1), (2) and (4) submitted that there is no dispute that the deceased were the workmen under the owner of the tractor involved. Mr. Bhokta also claimed that there is ample material to establish that the deceased were all engaged by the owner-O.P.1. Sri Bhokta, learned counsel for the claimants also relied on the Insurance Policy taken support in the trial. It is here considering both the submission and after perusal of the recording of the Commissioner, this Court finds, there is no dispute remaining engagement of the deceased labourers in the tractor involved belonging to O.P.1. There is also no dispute that there involved a insurance policy. This Court here finds even though the Insurance Policy was placed on record and evidence has been led involving such policy, but there is no evidence establishing that the Insurance Policy claimed to be covering the claim against the deceased covering the labourers engaged in the tractor. There is even no attempt on behalf of the claimants to bring the owner-O.P.1 to the Dock. Further this Court also finds, there is clear recording by the Commissioner through the evidence of the parties that all these deceased persons were engaged by O.P.1 and that they have all died while remaining in engagement by O.P.1. It appears, O.P.1 deliberately did not co-operate in the trial. Further this Court also finds, there is clear recording by the Commissioner through the evidence of the parties that all these deceased persons were engaged by O.P.1 and that they have all died while remaining in engagement by O.P.1. It appears, O.P.1 deliberately did not co-operate in the trial. It is here this Court takes note of recording of the Commissioner against Issue No.(4) of the deposition of OPW 1, who have stated that they have collected the certified copies of Registration Certificate, wherein sitting capacity of the tractor and trolley is one and as such, no other person than the driver of the vehicle can be allowed to sit except the driver driving the vehicle. O.P.W.1 also stated in his evidence that the deceased persons were unauthorized persons in the offending vehicle on the date of occurrence. In placing this on record, O.P.W. 1 also took help of the disclosures from the Exhibit-C-2. Even though, the driver was asked to produce the driving licence, since there is dispute with regard to driver not having a driving licence, the driver of the offending vehicle remained silent. This fact has also been established by O.P.W.1 through Exhibit-D-2. For the aforesaid disclosures and for no material brought through the claimants in at least establishing the Insurance Policy filed as Exhibit-D-2 at least covered the workmen. It is, however, at this stage looking to the plea of the Insurance Company right from the beginning of the case that the policy so relied by the parties should have been produced to find as to whether said policy covers the risk of four labourers besides the driver? 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company claims that the finding of the Commissioner at Page-8 of the judgment before the ordering portion appears to be perverse. Further such documents could not have been accepted in absence of any evidence from the side of the claimants at least establishing that the policy so relied on, covered the risk of four labourers involved therein. It is in this view of the matter, this Court finds there is no proper disposal of the compensation cases involved herein. However, keeping in view the allegation, it cannot be ruled out that the claimants are not at all entitled to compensation. It is in this view of the matter, this Court finds there is no proper disposal of the compensation cases involved herein. However, keeping in view the allegation, it cannot be ruled out that the claimants are not at all entitled to compensation. It is a case for retrial of the issue as to whether Insurance Company will pay the compensation or the owner will pay the compensation particularly keeping in view the insurance policy relied on? It will however be ultimately dependant on fresh trial of the proceeding. For the perversity and no clear materials establishing Insurance Policy covering the claim of the claimants /laourers for no clear material on this aspect, this Court while interfering in the judgment remits all the four matters to the Employees' Compensation and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jeypore for retrial of the proceeding involved herein, particularly keeping in view the question as to whether the Insurance Policy so relied by the claimants bearing No.OG-07-2403-5001-00000526, Exhibit-B/2 covers the risk of four labourers besides the driver ? And also if the driver was having a valid licence or not ? 7. In order to see that the claimants do not suffer on account of delay, this Court directs 50% of the amount in deposit along with accrued interest shall be released in favour of each of the claimants, which will be however adjustment in the ultimate award passed by the Commissioner, if necessary the Insurance Company shall have the right to recover the amount from the owner. 8. The Insurance Company and the claimants are directed to appear in the Employees' Compensation and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jeypore within a period of ten days along with copy of the judgment of this Court and the remand proceeding shall also be concluded by giving opportunity of hearing to all and with an attempt to ensure presence of the owner, if necessary, by way of Special Messenger notice. The cost of the Special Messenger shall be borne by the Insurance Company. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of communication of the judgment. Balance deposit shall be kept under Fixed Deposit. Release of the amount shall be dependent on the ultimate outcome in the remand proceeding. 9. With this observation, the four appeals stand disposed of but with the order of remand. There shall be no order as to costs.