IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA M.A. No.571 of 2007 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH IT’S DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SHANTI MARKET, P.S. CIVIL LINES, GAYA, REGIONAL OFFICE, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., AT SONE BHAWAN, 4TH FLOOR, B.C. PATEL PATH, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTRICT PATNA .. APPELLANT Versus 1. MOSST. BEDAMI DEVI, W/O LATE RAJENDRA PASWAN 2. PREM PASWAN, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 3. BINAY PASWAN, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS 4. TEJU PASWAN, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS 5. MINTA KUMARI, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 6. JAMUNA KUMARI, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS 7. ASHA KUMARI, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS 8. PUNAM KUMARI, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS ALL THE ABOVE ARE MINOR SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF LATE RAJENDRA PASWAN, UNDER THE NATURAL GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER, MOST. BEDAMI DEVI (RESPONDENT NO. 1) ALL THE ABOVE ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE LOKNACHAK, P.S. IMAMGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. .. APPLICANTS- RESPONDENTS 1ST SET 9. SRI RAM PRAVESH SINGH, S/O LATE BRIJ KISHORE SINGH, R/O VILLAGE IMAMGANJ, P.S. IMAMGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA (OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING REGISTRFATION NO. BHB 8768) .. OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2 RESPONDENT 2ND SET **** /5/ 03.08.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 20.07.2007, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya, by which he has granted claim of - 2 - Respondent.2,46,000/- and odd to be paid by the National insurance company under the Workmen Compensation Act for the death of Rajendra Paswan by a truck bearing registration no. BHB 8768 in which he was a khalasi-cleaner. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contends that Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act and in exercise of the power conferred under Section 30 Workmen Compensation Act a notification has been issued giving jurisdiction to the authority to decide a dispute and refers notification bearing no. SO 1188 L&E, dated 31st December, 1991, whereby and where under the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has been given authority to decide the cases of compensation which are contested cases and the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court ex-officio Commissioner has been given jurisdiction to decide the non-contested cases and on the basis of this notification the learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the case the appellant appeared, contested and disputed the claim and the moment it arises the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act ought to have refer the matter as he ceases his jurisdiction, but, the contested matter has to be decided by the Labour Court and, hence, relied upon decision reported in - 3 - (2007)2 P.L.J.R., 593 (Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Sajan Ram & Anr.) as well as on an unreported decision passed in M.A. No. 221 of 2005 on 08.07.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, contends that the owner has come to support his case and even filed written statement supporting the case, hence, the question for consideration is whether the Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum-Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide the case. 5. From the impugned order, itself, it is apparent on the claim of the respondent, Most. Bedami Devi, wife of the deceased, a notice was issued to owner of the vehicle who appeared and not disputed the claim, however, the insurance company contested as appeared from the order, filed written statement and the insurance company contested and cross examine the witness of the appellant and, hence, from the impugned order, itself, it appears that the insurance company has contested. 6. The Notification No. SO 1188 L-E, dated 31st December, 1991, which was issued in exercise of the power conferred by sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1922, giving power to the - 4 - Presiding Officer of the Labour Court as ex-officio commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act in case of contest and the impugned order suggests that insurance company has contested the claim and, hence, ousting the jurisdiction of the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act. 7. Hence, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances the impugned order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya, is not sustainable and is hereby set aside as the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, has no jurisdiction to decide contested case and is directed to remit the case to the Labour Court for proper adjudication, who has jurisdiction in contested case. The parties are directed to appear in the Court below within one month from today for proper adjudication in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. (Gopal Prasad, J. )