IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.136 of 2003 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED through its Chairman, 3-Middle Street, Calcutta. 2. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Gaya. 3. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Gaya. All represented through the Manager, The National Insurance Company, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. . . . . Appellants. Versus 1. MOST. SUDHA DEVI W/o Late Anil Kumar. 2. Miss Prianka Kumar D/o Late Nail Kumar 3. Kunal Kumar s/o Late Anil Kumar 4. Sujata Kumari w/o late Anil Kumar. All minors under the Guardianship of their mother Mostt. Sudha Devi. . . . . Claimants - Respondents. 5. Mostt. Rajmani Devi W/o late Chandreshwar Sharma. 6. Sunil Kumar S/o late Chandreshwar Sharma. All r/o village Kazoor, P.O. Kazoor, P.S. Atri, Distt.-Gaya. . . . . Claimant - Respondents. 7. Satish Chandra Shyam, son of late Chandreshwar Sharma, resident of village & P.O. Kazoor, P.S. Atri, Distt.-Gaya, Owner of Tractor bearing No. BRRB-6869, Trailor No. BRRB 6969. 8. Mitendra Kumar S/o late Saryug Singh, Village and P.O. Kazoor, P.S. Atri, Distt.-Gaya, Driver of the vehicle. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 18/ 12.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. No one appears for the respondents despite notice. Counsel for the appellants has challenged the impugned order dated 30.01.2003 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in case no. 29 of 1999. Learned counsel submits that Commissioner under Section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act could only decide the uncontested cases as per issue no.1118 L & E dated 31.12.1991 issued under Section 20(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. A copy of the aforesaid notification has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the interlocutory application bearing no. 3432 of 2003. In spite of notices, the respondents have not appeared in this - 2 - case. Learned counsel in support of his submission has also relied upon a decision reported in case of Most. Parmada Devi Vs. Sri Bishwanath Singh and others reported in 2003 (2) P.L.J.R. 722. The issue is whether on the relevant date i.e. in January, 2003, whether there was any notification authorizing the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation to hear the matter or not. As no one appeared on behalf of respondents, this court has not got any assistance in this regard. In this view of the matter the case is remitted to the Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum- Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation. The learned Commissioner would ascertain whether there has been any subsequent notification conferring jurisdiction on him to decide the case. In case, there is no subsequent notification, he would recall the impugned order after giving opportunity to the other side, with liberty to move appropriate forum. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)