The court clarified the scope of the Commissioner's power under Section 19(1) and the applicability of Section 14(1) in determining the liability of the Insurance Company under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

( 1 ) COMMON questions of law, which arise for our decision in these appeals under Section 30 (1) of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the act') are" two. While one of them relates to the amdit of power of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, the other relates to the scope and applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.

( 2 ) MATERIAL facts, which have given rise to the said questions, are briefly these : The appellant in all these appeals, is the United India Fire and General insurance Company Ltd. , (for short 'the insurance Company' ). One or the other of the respondents in each of these appeals, is in "employer" for purposes of the Act. The Insurance Company (insurer) issued an insurance policy called 'workmen's Compensation Policy' to each employer. The operative portion of such policy read :"now THIS POLICY WITNESSETH that if at any time during the period of insurance any employee in the insured's immediate service shall sustain personal injury by accident or disease arising out of and in the course of his employment by the Insured in the Business and if the Insured shall be liable to pay compensation for such injury either under. the law (s) set out in the Scheduls or at common Law then subject to the terms exceptions and conditions contained herein or endorsed hereon the Company will indemnify the Insured against all sums for which the Insured shall be so liable and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its consent in defending any claim for such compensation. PROVIDED ALWAYS that in the event of any change in the Law (s) or the substitution of other legislation therefor this Policy shall remain in force but the liability of the Company shall be limited to such sum as the company would have been liable to pay if the law (s) had remained unaltered. "each policy so issued, it was agreed before us, was a special policy, which was intended to cover to cover the liability of the employer to pay compensation under the Act for th'e personal injury sustained by his workman by accident or disease arising out of and in the course of his employment for his business during the period of subsistence of that policy. It was also agreed that the appellant (Insurance Company) has been made, under each order under appeal, liable to make good to the person concerned, compensation which the employer was liable to pay under the act respecting personal injury suffered by the workman by accident or disease arising out of and in the course of his employment. But, the ambit of power of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act to direct the Insurance Company (appellant) to pay the compensation liable to be paid by the employer under the Act, to the person entitled to it, and the liability to pay such compensation by the Insurance company under the Insurance Policy issued by it, unless a contingency covered under sub-section (1) of Section 14 had arisen, were disputed. This is how, two questions, adverted to at the outset, have arisen for our decision and we shall now proceed to deal with them.

( 3 ) RE : power of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act- sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the act reads thus : " (1) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation (including any question as to whether a person injured is or is not a workman) or as to the amount of duration of compensation (including any question as to the nature or extent of disablement) the question shall, in default of agreement, be settled by a Commissioner. '' from a perusal of the above provision, it becomes obvious that the power of the Commissioner thereunder extends to the settlement of any question arising in any proceedings under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation. But, it was contended for the appellant (Insurance Company) by its