IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.83 of 2006 DIVISIONAL MANAGER , NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., Motijheel, Muzaffarpur, represented through Sri Pravin Kumar Sinha and constituted attorney of the National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office at 4th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Veer Chand Patel Path, P.S. Sachiwalaya, Distt. Patna. ----- Appellant. Versus 1. BABY DEVI, w/o. late Devendra Rai, 2. Nirsan Kumari, minor, D/o. late Devendra Rai, 3. Nima Kumari, minor D/o. late Devendra Rai, 4. Rupesh Kumar, minor s/o. late Devendra Rai, All r/o. village Banbira, P.S. Tajpur, Distt. Samastipur. ------- Respondents. 1. Rajendra Rai, s/o. Jhari Rai 2. Jawahar Rai, S/o. Chandra deep Rai, Both r/o. villalge Banbira, P.S. Tajpur, District- Samastipur. ---------Respondents. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Shailendra Kumar, -----Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, --Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh--- Advocate. 9 28.11.2008 With the consent of both the sides, this appeal was finally heard under Order 41 Rule-12 C.P.C. This appeal by the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Muzaffarpur is against the Award dated 12.01. 2006 of the Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum-Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Muzaffarpur in Case of W.C. No.3 of 2004, whereby compensation of Rs.1,68,040/- to the O.Ps. has awarded. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant raised the sole point of jurisdiction. It was submitted that 2 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, the appellant had appeared and had denied his liability in his written statement and thus the case was contested one. Learned counsel referred to the provisions under Section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and points out that the state government has been authorized under law to appoint commissioners for the purpose of deciding such claims. In this context the notification under S.O. No.464 dated 13th June, 1993 regarding appointment of commissioners for deciding such cases of compensation was referred to Clause-A to the notification mentions that presiding officers of the Labour Courts will be the ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to deal with contested cases arising under the Act and rules framed therein. Clause-B to the notification mentions that Officers other than Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts will be ex-officio commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to deal with uncontested cases only arising under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. A schedule to the notification 3 mentions about separate and particular territorial jurisdiction of the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant had denied his liability and the case was a contested one, the Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum-Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, who passed the impugned order, had no jurisdiction to pass the same and he had to refer the matter to the concerned Presiding Officer of the Labour Courts who only was competent to hear and pass order in the matter. Nothing is being pointed out on behalf of the respondents to enable this Court to take a contrary view. Thus, hearing both the sides and considering the provisions under Section 20 of the Act as well as the aforesaid S.O. No.464, I find that the Deputy Labour Commissioner -cum-Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner who passed the impugned order had no jurisdiction to pass it. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained under law. In such view of the matters, the impugned order is set aside. The concerned Deputy Labour 4 Commissioner- cum- Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner who passed the impugned order will refer the matter to the Presiding Officers of the concerned Labour Court for disposal accordingly. The Presiding Officer of the concerned Labour Court will decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)