Miscellaneous Appeal No. 326 of 2005 **** Against the judgment and order, dated 30.06.2005, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Gaya, in C.W.C. No. 2o of 2004 **** United India Insurance Company Limited through Deputy Manager, Regional Office United India Insurance Company Limited, Chanakya Commercial Complex ‘R’ Block, Patna .. Opposite Party/Appellant Versus 1. Suryamani Devi, w/o Yogendra Paswan 2. Yogendra Paswan, s/o Ramdeo Paswan Both residents of village Sondiha, P.S./P.O. Sherghati, district Gaya .. Applicants/Respondents 3. Sri Krishna Sharma, s/o late Baleshwar Mistry @ Baleshwar Sharma, r/o village Baheliya Bigha, P.O. Chitap Khurd, P.S. Sherghati, district Gaya (owner of tractor, trailer) .. Opposite Party/Respondent **** For the appellant .. Mr. Durgesh Kr. Singh, Adv. For respondents 1 and 2 .. Mr. Arun Kr. Singh, Adv. **** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 30.06.2005, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya, by which he has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondents as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 2 1923, for the death of deceased, Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu, the son of the claimants. 3. The case of the claimants is that the deceased, Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu, died in a road accident by a tractor, bearing registration no. BR-2C-2761, and trailer, bearing registration No. BR- 2C-2762, when the tractor turned turtle and succumbed to the injury and it is claimed that the deceased, Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu, was the driver of the tractor. The Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, awarded the compensation as mentioned above. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contested the claim and resisted the claim in this appeal. It is contended that under Section 20 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, when a claim is resisted by the owner of the vehicle then the Deputy Labour Commissioner ceases the jurisdiction that the jurisdiction is required to refer the matter to the Labour Court who has got the jurisdiction. It has, further, been contended that the deceased was an employee and the insurance regarding the employee of the vehicle only cover to the extent the contract entered into between the owner and the insurance company and since there is no specification whether the labourer of tractor was covered under the insurance and whether insurance company is liable to pay. The learned counsel has relied upon decisions reported in (2006) 5 S.C.C., 192 (New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya & Anr.) 3 and 2003 (3) P.L.J.R., 176 (Ramashray Singh Vrs. New India Assuance Co. Ltd & Ors.). 5. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the owner is not contesting and further the labourer was not covered under the insurance between the parties. 6. Hence, having regard to the fact that Section 20 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, and notification issued thereupon it has been well settled that once the employer contest the claim, the Deputy Labour Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and he is bound to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication and the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon decision reported in 2007 (2) P.L.J.R. 141 (Oriental Insurance Company Vrs. Pyara Paswan & Anr.) where it has been held that after due consideration of the decision reported in and 2003 (2) P.L.J.R. 722 M/S Raj Kishore and comp. Vrs The State of Bihar) and from he perusal of the impugned order, itself, that it is apparent that the claim of the appellant was resisted by the insurance company and since the impugned order, itself, indicates that the claim of the residents then it was incumbent on him to refer the matter to the Labour Court as the Deputy Labour Commissioner, who has no jurisdiction to decide the case on contest regarding the claim and, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision reported in (2006) 5 S.C.C., 192 (supra), however, that decision is with regard to challenging the order for 4 imposing penalty under Section 4A of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, and there it has been held that it is the owner who has to pay the compensation and if not paid within thirty days then owner is liable to pay penalty and interest and for the fault of owner the insurance company can not be fastened to pay for the default by owner, hence, is not applicable. However, having regard to the fact that the claim by labourer has been contested as apparent from impugned order, hence, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Workmen's Compensation has no jurisdiction, but, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has jurisdiction, hence, the impugned order is set aside. Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and he Deputy Labour Commissioner is directed to refer the matter to the concerned Labour Court for proper adjudication. (Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court The 18th August, 2010, N.A.F.R./Cp:2/S.A.