IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 408 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.5.2011 TRIG Detective Pvt. Ltd. ….Petitioner. Versus Sarita Devi and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. C.S.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent No.4.: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. Admit. The following substantial question of law arises in this petition:- “Whether the Officer, who has passed the order held the necessary qualifications required under the Employees Compensation Act and if not whether the award passed by him is without jurisdiction?” 2. With the consent of the parties the matter is disposed of today itself. 3. It would be pertinent to mention that this Court in CWP No. 1704 of 2010 after considering the amended provisions of the Workmen’s 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Compensation Act, 1923 now renamed as Employees Compensation Act clearly held that the persons who are appointed as Commissioners to assess the compensation must hold the qualifications prescribed in Section 20 of the principle Act as amended. The essential qualifications are:- (1) That the persons should have been member of State Judicial Service for a period of five years; or (2) has worked as an Advocate or pleader for five years; or (3) has been a Gazetted Officer for not less than five years having educational qualifications and experience in personnel management human resource development and industrial relations. 4. The Officer, who passed the impugned order, was directed to file an affidavit on 15.11.2000 in the following terms:- (1) Whether he has been a member of the State Judicial Service for a period of not less than five years; (2) Whether he has been an advocate for five years: (3) Whether he has been a Gazetted Officer for five years and if so, whether he has educational qualifications and experience in Personnel 3 Management, Human Resource Development and Industrial Relations. 5. The concerned official has filed his affidavit and he has clearly stated that he has neither been a member of the State Judicial Service nor practiced as an Advocate. According to him, he has been a Gazetted Officer for 15 years and possessed diploma in Management in the year 1992 and has experience of personnel management and Human Resource Development as an Officer. The Act clearly provides that a Officer concerned must have experience of five years as a Gazetted Officer and in addition thereto he should have educational qualifications and experience in personnel management, human resource development and Industrial Relations. The petitioner has only done diploma in management. This is not a diploma fulfilling the needs of the Section, which clearly provides that the educational qualifications should be in the field of personnel management, human resource development and industrial relations. The Officer has not stated that his educational qualification fulfill these criteria. Therefore, he 4 could not have acted as a Commissioner and the award is set-aside on this ground alone. 6. Evidence has already been led in this case and it would not be in the interest of justice to start the trial de novo. Therefore, only the impugned award is set-aside and the Court to which the matter is transferred shall only re-hear the arguments and decide the case on the basis of the pleading and evidence already on record. 7. The State has issued a notification dated 14th February, 2011 whereby all Judicial Magistrates or Civil Judges who have either five years experience in the judicial service or combined five years experience as an Advocate and in judicial service have been designated as Commissioners. Therefore, the matter is sent to the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rajgarh who to decide the case on merits. The SDM Rajgarh is directed to transfer the record of the case No. 7 of 2008 titled as Sarita Devi vs. Chief Executive Officer to the office of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Rajgarh. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rajgarh on 21st June, 2011. Since arguments are to be heard in the matter 5 the Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible and in any event not later than 31st July, 2011. The amount which has been deposited by the petitioner in this Court shall be refunded to it alongwith interest, if any, accrued thereupon. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 18th May, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge