IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.132 of 2009 M/S MEHI PICTURE PALACE & ANR ---------Opposite Parties – Appellants Versus SMT.REENA MISHRA & ANR -----------------Applicant-Respondent For the Appellant :- Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Sahay, Advocate Mr. Inderjeet Bhushan For the Respondent : Sri Mahendra Prasad, Advocate. ORDER 07. 06.07.2010. 1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Patna in W.C. Case No.27 of 2001 (C) whereby the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.2,05,718/-. 2. It appears that the respondent, Smt. Reena Mishra, widow of Late Sukesh Mishra, filed the claim application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation which was registered as W.C. Case No.27 of 2001 (C). The claimant alleged that her husband Sukesh Mishra @ Abhaya Narayan Mishra was employed by the appellants received personal injury in course of employment resulting in his death on 14.10.2000. He was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and he was aged about 40 years. 3. After notice, appellant filed show cause challenging the 2 maintainability of the claim case and also disputed the claim. According to the appellants, the case under W.C. Act was not maintainable because the deceased husband of the claimant was not a wakman within the meaning of the W.C. Act. He was manager of Mehi Picture Palace. It was also alleged that the deceased did not die in course of the employment and he was not on duty at the time of occurrence. 4. Thereafter, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, decided the issues raised by the parties and then passed the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the employer i.e., appellant had raised a dispute the Deputy Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the contested case. The learned counsel relied upon various decisions of this High Court as well as the notification being S.O. NO.1188 L & E dated 31.12.1991 issued by State Government. 6. In a decision reported in 1999 (2) P.L.J.R. 803 M/s Raj Kishan Company Vs. the State of Bihar, it has been held by this Court that when the claim is contested, the Deputy Labour Commissioner is not competent to decide such a dispute. It is the Presiding Office of Labour Court who has the jurisdiction to adjudicate when the claim is contested. In 2003 (2) P.L.J.R. 722 Mostt. Parmada Devi Vs. Sri Vishwanath Singh also it has been held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter when the employer contested the claim case. In 2007 (2) P.L.J.R. 141, Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Ram Pyara Paswan, the same view has been taken. Recently, by the order dated 1st July, 2010 passed in M.A. 3 No.391 of 2006 again this Court following those decisions and has taken the same view. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant raised the dispute. The notification being S.O. No.1188 L & E dated 31.12.1991 was issued under sub-Section 1 & 2 of Section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. By that notification, the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court have been appointed as ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and jurisdiction has been conferred on them to deal with all contested cases arising under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the other Officers other than the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court have been conferred jurisdiction to deal with non- contested cases only arising under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In view of this notification, the jurisdiction has been conferred on the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court to decide contested cases arising under this Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 8. In view of the above settled law, in my opinion, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 9. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this Misc. Appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and he is directed to refer the matter to the Labour Court. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)