IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA M.A. No.566 of 1999 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE AT SONE BHAWAN, VEERCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA – 800 001 .. APPELLANTS Versus 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD KESARI, S/O LATE JADISH SAO 2. KOSILA DEVI, W/O SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD KESARI BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BARACHATTI, P.O. & P.S. BARACHATTI, DISTRICT GAYA .. RESPONDENT 1ST SET 3. JUGAL PRASAD SINGH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, R/O LAKHIBAG, P.S. MUFASSIL, P.O. BUNIYADGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA .. RESPONDENT **** 17 16 September 2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 30.08.1999, Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum-Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya, in C.W.C. Case No. 29 of 1997 by which he has allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,24,000/- to the claimants for the death of Rajendra Prasad Kesari alleged to be in khalasi in of truck bearing registration no. BHB 5196. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the deceased, Rajednra Prasad Kesari, on duty on the relevant date, i.e., 07.03.1997, and it is alleged that the vehicle was insured 2 with the National Insurance Company Limited, Bermo, Bokaro. On 07.03.1997 when the deceased was on duty an unknown truck, on G.T. Road, one kilometer away from Amas, hit him by which he sustained grievous injury and succumbed to injury. Consequently, a petition filed with the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya. A notice was given to the owner, but, he did not appear. The insurance company appeared and filed written statement on 01.09.1998 challenging the claim of the claimant asserting that the deceased was not a permanent employee of opposite party no. 1. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that the said vehicle was not insured and the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal after adducing the evidence. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned order contends that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, has no jurisdiction to decide the compensation when the case was contested relying upon the provision contained in Sections 19 and 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and has placed reliance on 3 decision reported in 2003 (2) P.L.J.R., 722 (Most. Parmada Devi Vrs. Sri Bishwanath Singh & Ors.) and has submitted that once the claim has been contested the matter has to be adjudicated by the Labour Court having territorial jurisdiction. However, in decision reported in 2003 (2) P.L.J.R., 722 (supra) it has been held that “by Government Notification No. S.O. 1188 L & E, dated 31.12.1991, issued in terms of Section 20(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Presiding Officer of the concerned Labour Court has been declared as the ex- officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to deal with all contested case arising under the Act and the rules framed thereunder, and an officer other than the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has been declared as ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to deal with non-contested cases only arising under the Act and the rules framed thereunder”. 5. Hence, having established the legal position that Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, has only jurisdiction to deal with non-contested cases and the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court having declared as ex-officio Commissioner, 4 Workmen's Compensation, to deal with the contested case. 6. Hence, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the claim petition filed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner -cum- Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya, and since contest is there as the insurance company appeared and raised objection about the employment as the owner did not confirm it, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide, but, was required to refer the matter to Labour Court for adjudication and, hence, the impugned order which was decided by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, who has no jurisdiction, is hereby set aside and the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya, is directed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )