IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7828 of 2003 Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Bihari Choudhari, son of Shri Mahendra Choudhary, resident of Village- Kharauna, P.S. Khurhary, District-Vaishali ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Muzaffarpur 3. Lal Mohan Paswan, son of Babulal Paswan, resident of Village- Bariarpur (Rudal) P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur 4. Shree Narsingh Choudhary, son of Kailash Choudhary, resident of Village- Bariarpur, P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur ……………………… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, AC to GP 7. ------------ 5. 19.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears for respondent nos. 3 and 4, although notices have been validly served upon them and the respondent no. 3 has also entered appearance. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 9.7.2003 contained in memo no. 2350 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner –cum- Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Muzaffarpur in W.C. case No. 19 of 2002, by which he has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 82,880.00 as compensation in his Court by 8.8.2003. The Respondent no.3, Lal Mohan Paswan had filed an application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 2 claiming compensation of Rs. 1, 71,130/- on account of permanent injury in his right hand received on 2.4.2002 while working as a workman in the Hot-mixing machine of the petitioner. Initially the claim was made against one Narsingh Choudhary, respondent no. 4 alone but subsequently the petitioner was added as opposite party no. 2 in the said W.C. Case No. 19/2002. On notice the petitioner appeared and filed his show cause in which he denied that the claimant-respondent no.3 was a labourer in the Hot- mixing plant nor that he was owner of the said Hot-mixing Plant and other pleas raised by the respondent no. 3 were all denied. However, by the impugned order dated 9.7.2003 the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Muzaffarpur allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay the compensation of Rs. 82,880/- to the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of SO No. 1188 dated 31.12.1991 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, all petitions for claim of compensation shall be filed in the Court of the Deputy 3 Labour Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner of Labour being the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation for uncontested cases and in case they become contested, they will be transferred to the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court-cum-Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation for disposal. It is urged by learned counsel that in view of the notification dated 31.12.1991 of the State Government since the petitioner has disputed the claims raised by respondent no.3, the Deputy Labour Commissioner had no authority to deal with the case which had become contested, decide the matter and grant compensation and ought to have transferred the same to the competent Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur. It is thus submitted that the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner is without jurisdiction. In support of the aforesaid proposition, learned counsel relies upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Most. Parmada Devi Vs. Sri Bishwanath Singh & Ors.: 2003(2) PLJR 722. This Court finds sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from the notification dated 31.12.1991 that once the petitioner had 4 appeared before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and contested the facts stated in the application, it was not open to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to come to a finding that the matter was not contested as the petitioner had not been able to produce any document in support of his stand. The only option before the Deputy Labour Commissioner in such circumstance was to have transferred the case to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur for adjudication of the matter. The same having not been done, the order dated 9.7.2003 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is without jurisdiction and the same is accordingly quashed. The writ application is thus allowed. The Deputy Labour Commissioner is directed to transfer the records of W.C. Case No. 19/2002 forthwith to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur for disposal of the matter. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)