IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13324 of 2008 1. SMT MAMTA SAHAY WIFE OF LATE A.N. SAHAY 2. ANAND MOHAN SAHAY @ LADDU SAHAY SON OF LATE A.N. SAHAY, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF TILKAMANJHI, BANK COLONY, P.S-TILKAMANJHI, DISTT. BHAGALPUR ………………PETITONERS VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AUTHORITY UNDER THE WORKMAN COMPENSATION ACT, BHAGALPUR. 2. DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AUTHORITY UNDER THE WORKMAN COMPENSATION ACT, BHAGALPUR 3. MOSMAT RANJANA DEVI WIFE OF LATE BHIM RAI, RESIDENT OF MOH. JAWARIPUR NEAR F.C.I OFFICE P.S- TILKAMANJHI, DISTT-BHAGALPUR 4. SURESH ROY SON OF LATE CHEDI ROY, RESIDENT OF MOH.-JAWARIPUR NEAR F.C.I OFFICE P.S- TILKAMANJHI, DISTT-BHAGALPUR 5. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, BHAGALPUR, UNDER PUBLIC DEMAND RECOVERY ACT…………….RESPONDENTS For the petitioners: :Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Advocate. For the State :Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, AC to GP. 13 For respondent nos. 3 & 4 :Mr. N. Ganguli, Advocate. ----------- 05/ 21.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities (respondent nos.1 and 2) as well as learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos.3 and 4. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 14.03.2005 (Annexure-1) passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Compensation, Bhagalpur (respondent no.2) by which Workmen’s Compensation Case No.12 of 2003 filed by respondent nos.3 and 4 was allowed and employers (petitioners) were directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the impugned order itself, it is quite apparent that the matter was a contested one and hence according to law the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner Compensation had no authority or jurisdiction to decide such matter and the matter should have been transferred to the competent authority, namely the Labour Court, Bhagalpur which had the jurisdiction to decide contested compensation matters. He further states that this point was raised by the petitioners before respondent no.2 before passing of the impugned order as would be clear from the impugned order itself, but no heed was paid thereto and hence the impugned order is clearly fit to be set aside as not maintainable. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that the impugned order has not been passed on contest. He further submits that the impugned order is of the year 2005, whereas the writ petition has been filed much belatedly in the year 2008 and hence the same is not maintainable as it is only meant for harassing the workmen. Learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents further avers that originally the case was filed before the Labour Court, Bhagalpur but on the objection of petitioners, it was transferred to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur at their instance. Hence, the petitioners had no occasion to turn around and raise objection to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Labour Commissioner. In the said circumstances, he states that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, the main question is with regard to 3 the jurisdiction of the authority concerned. In this regard, provision has been made by the Government Notification bearing S.O. No.1188 L & E dated 31st December, 1991 which reads as follows: In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (Act VIII of 1923) and in supersession of all previous notifications issued on the subject the Governor of Bihar is pleased to appoint the officers named in column 2 of Schedule hereto annexed to be ex-officio commissioners for Workmen’s Compensation within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction as specified in Column 4 of the said Schedule and to declare that; (a) The Presiding Officers of the Labour Court, as ex-officio Commissioners for Workmen’s Compensation shall deal with all contested cases arising under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder; (b) The officers other than the Presiding Officer of the Labour Courts as ex-officio Commissioners for workmen’s compensation shall deal with non- contested cases only arising under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder; (c) All deposits of Workmen’s Compensation amount for disbursement in pursuance of section 8 shall be made with the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation of the areas concerned other than the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court, as ex-officio Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation; (d) All returns as required under sections 10A, 10B and 16 of the said Act shall be submitted to the respective Commissioners for the Workmen’s Compensation other than the Presiding Officers of Labour Courts as ex-officio commissioners for Workmen’s Compensation; and (e) All petitions for claim of Compensation shall be filed in the Court of the 4 Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation; for uncontested cases and in case this becomes contested, they will be transferred to the respective presiding Officers of the Labour Courts, as ex- officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation for disposal. 6. Clause (e) of the said notification clearly provides that all the petitions for claim of compensation shall be filed in the court of the Commissioner for the workmen’s compensation and if it is uncontested matter it has to be decided by the same authority and if it becomes contested such cases will be transferred to the respective Presiding Officer of Labour Courts as ex-officio Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation for disposal. In the said circumstances, when the claimants (respondent nos.3 and 4) filed their claim before the Labour Court, Bhagalpur, the petitioners rightly objected thereto as such claims should have been originally filed before the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and accordingly the matter was legally transferred to the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Compensation. 7. However, when the case came before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Compensation it was his duty to see as to whether it was a contested matter or it was uncontested matter, as according to Clause (a) and Clause (b) of the said notification the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court as ex-officio Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation shall deal with the contested cases arising under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, whereas officers other than the Presiding Officer of the Labour Courts as ex-officio 5 Commissioners for Workmen’s Compensation shall deal with uncontested cases only arising under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 8. From the impugned order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner (respondent no.2) it is quite apparent that the matter was contested one and objection to the jurisdiction of that authority was raised by the petitioners as per the relevant rules, but the said Deputy Labour Commissioner without considering the objection and without appreciating the aforesaid provisions himself decided the matter, although it was a contested case and as such the Deputy Labour Commissioner had no authority to decide such matters and he should have transferred the case to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bhagalpur which was the competent authority to decide such contested matters. 9. Since the question of jurisdiction cuts at the root of the authority of the court for deciding such matter, this court has to take cognizance of the same irrespective of the delay caused in the matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner (respondent no.2) dated 14.03.2005 (Annexure-1) is hereby quashed with a direction to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur to transfer the case to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bhagalpur. If respondent nos.3 and 4 approach the Deputy Labour Commissioner (respondent no.2) along with a copy of this order within fifteen days from today, the said authority shall transfer the case to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bhagalpur within fifteen days thereafter. 10. This court has not gone into the merit of the case 6 and hence the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bhagalpur is directed to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of six months on its own merits in accordance with law. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)