Prakash Garg’s case (supra) would not apply to the present case as therein, the ratio laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roop Kanwar, 1991 ACJ 74 was distinguished and it was observed that if any additional premium has been paid, the Insurance Company would be liable even qua the penalty amount. 7. Heard learned counsels and perused the material available on record. 8. So far as the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition is concerned, the said ground is not tenable for the reason that it was the respondent employer who ought to have preferred an appeal at the first instance. Admittedly, the Act of 1923 does not provide for any provision for review of the order passed by the Commissioner. Despite the same, a review was preferred by the employer and the same was even entertained by the Commissioner. Evidently, there is no provision under the Act of 1923 which provides for an appeal against the order of review. Therefore, in the specific opinion of this Court, once a review had been entertained by the Commissioner without there being any provision for the same, the Insurance Company definitely was left with no other option but to prefer a writ petition as the Act of 1923 does not provide for any remedy against the order of review also.
