S.C. Mohapatra, J.
2. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner under the Act alleging that he was in an employment under the respondent No. 2, the contractor. In course of and arising out of his employment, he sustained injuries on 3.5.1988.
3. Commissioner has found that notices on respondent No. 2 was sent by registered post but returned unserved with the postal remark ‘left1. Respondent No. 2 would be the best person to prove whether respondent No. 1 is its employee, his age and salary as well as the nature of the injuries. Since notice on respondent No. 2 is not sufficient, entire enquiry is vitiated being in violation of the principle of natural justice.
4. Workman is to face prolonged litigation. To mitigate this grievance, from out of the amount in deposit, Commissioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the workman for taking part is the enquiry which shall be adjusted or realised depending on the finding of relationship of master and servant.
5. In the result, appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and Commissioner is directed to dispose of the claim afresh in accordance with the law after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. Since all parties have appeared before me I direct them to appear before the Commissioner on 20th April, 1992 on which day the date of enquiry shall be fixed. No costs.