IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.391 of 2006 BRANCH MANAGER,UNITED INDIA IN …..O.P.No.2-Appellant Versus MOST.SUJATA DEVI & ORS …..Petitioners – respondents. For the appellant: Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: None. ORDER 12 1.7.2010 This Misc.appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner Workmen’ Compensation, Munger Division, Begusarai, in W.C. Case No.20/05 whereby the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner directed the appellant to pay Rs.3,94,120/- to the petitioners- respondents. 2. The facts may be stated, in brief, that the petitioners filed the aforesaid case alleging that on 20.1.2005 the deceased Rajesh Mahto died in course of employment as driver of employer/owner of the vehicle being Registration No.BR 9B/9089. The owner is respondent no.6 in this appeal. The vehicle in question was hired by criminals who killed the deceased and threw the dead body. The deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month under the employment of respondent no.6. The said application was registered as W.C. Case No.20/05. 3. After notice the appellant appeared and filed a contesting objection disputing the fact that the deceased was an employee of respondent no.6. It was alleged that the deceased 2 was working on need base and was being paid Rs.60/- per day only. 4. By the impugned order the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner decided the disputed question of fact and passed the impugned order as stated above. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to decide the disputed questions of fact. According to the learned counsels the Deputy Labour Commissioner is empowered to decide only the case where there is no dispute raised by the Opposite party. In other words, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide only undisputed cases. The learned counsel relied upon the notification issued under this Act by the State Government and also the various decisions of this Court. The learned counsel further submitted that when a claim is contested it is to be referred to the Commissioner appointed by the State Government under section 20 of the Act. 6. It appears that notices were served in limitation matter as well as admission matter and in spite of the service notice nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. 7. I have already heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the limitation application also. The limitation expired on 30.10.2006 and the appeal was filed on 17.10.2006 without the certified copy of the order which was subsequently 3 filed by obtaining certified copy on 16.11.2006 and, therefore, according to the office there is delay of about 16 days. The learned counsel submitted that the appeal was filed within time along with copy of the order supplied by the office because the appellant was under impression that certified copy is not required to be filed but subsequently after obtaining the same the certified copy was filed. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case I find that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from not filing the appeal within time. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The limitation application is allowed. 8. So far the jurisdiction of Deputy Labour Commissioner is concerned in a decision reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 803; M/S. Raj Kishan Company Vrs. The State of Bihar and others, this Court has held that it is the Presiding Officer of Labour Court who has the jurisdiction to adjudicate when the claim is contested. The Deputy Labour Commissioner is not competent to decide such a dispute. In another decision reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 722; Mostt Parmada Devi versus Sri vishwanath Singh, this Court again has held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner – cum – Commissioner under the Workmen’ Compensation Act has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter when the employer contested the claim case. Relying upon these decisions this Court recently in a decision reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 141; Oriental Insurance Company 4 versus Ram Pyara Paswan, again held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide the contested matter. 9. In the present case, as stated above, it is evident from the impugned order that the appellant contested the claim of the petitioners – respondents. In view of the above settled principles of law laid down by this Court in various decisions since long, it is unfortunate that Deputy Labour Commissioners-cum- Commissioners under the Workmen’ Compensation Act are deciding the disputed contested matters ignoring the decisions of this Court. It may be mentioned here that the Notification being SO No.1188, L & E dated 31.12.1991 has been issued in terms of section 20 of the Act. By the said Notification the Presiding Officers of the concerned Labour Court have been declared as the ex-officio Commissioner for workmen’ compensation to deal with all contested case arising under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In the said Notification an officer other than the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has been declared as ex- officio Commissioner for workmen’ compensation to deal with non-contested cases only arising under the Act and the rules framed thereunder, but notification issued by the State Government is also ignored by the Deputy Labour Commissioner – cum – Commissioners. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances 5 of the case I find that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 11. In the result, this Misc. Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner is directed to refer the matter to the Labour Court. AnilKr.Sinha ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )