( 1 ) THIS appeal has come up for orders on the office objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal. The brief facts of the case which are relevant to decide the office objection arc as follows:- the respondent workman filed an application before the Workmen's Compensation authority claiming compensation in respect of employment injury. The said application was allowed by the order of the authority dated 25/8/1987. On 18/9/1987 the appellants filed an application under Rule 41 (wrongly referred to as Rule 42) of the Workmen's Compensation rules, praying for setting aside the order dated 25/8/1987 on the ground that no notice had been served on the appellants and therefore the order passed cx-parte against them should be set aside. This application was rejected by the order dated 4/8/1989 made by the authority upholding the objection of the workman that notice had been served on the appellants and there was no justification for the appellants not to have appeared before the authority. It is against the said Order the appellants have preferred this appeal under order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The office has raised an objection regarding the ma