Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. The writ petition was filed challenging the ORDER :dated 19.8.2009 passed by the Workmen's Compensation commissioner, Patna awarding compensation to the private respondent no.3 under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of an accident suffered on 1.8.1991 while discharging duties in the petitioner’s establishment.

3. By the impugned ORDER :, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, while allowing the claim, has held that as the respondent no.3 was not an insured person within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1948 Act’), hence, the objection taken by the petitioner that the proceedings were not sustainable in view of the bar provided under section 53 of the Act, was not sustainable. The said findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner led to the filing of the writ petition.

4. The facts of the case in brief is that the respondent no.3 workman had moved the Workman Compensation Commissioner, the authority prescribed under the Act for compensation by reason of an accide