Oriental Insurance Company vs Ram Pyara Paswan and Another

Rekha Kumari, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company against the order dated 18.3.2003 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Patna W.C. Case No. 12 of 2002(C) whereby he has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,33,820/- to respondent no. 1 Ram Pyara Paswan as compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for the death of his son Birendra Paswan. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

Birendra @ Birendra Paswan was a tractor driver of respondent no. 2 Satish Kumar. The tractor was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. On 13.9.2001 when Birendra Paswan was on duty he was murdered by some miscreants. Respondent no. 1 filed an application for Compensation under the Act. The appellant contested the claim of the applicant (respondent no. 1) on various grounds. The learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner after considering the statement of the applicant and show causes and the documents filed by the other parties passed the impugned order.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Patna had no jurisdiction to decide the case and therefore, the impugned order is non est and liable to be set aside. He submitted that as provided u/s 19(1) of the Act whenever a claim is contested, the matter has to be referred to a Commissioner for workmen compensation appointed by the State Government and that under the Government notification, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has been appointed as ex officio Commissioner for workmen compensation to deal with the contesting cases and the Officer other than the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has been declared as ex officio Commissioner to deal with the non-contested cases and as such, the Deputy Labour Commissioner should not have dealt with the matter and should have referred the matter to the Labour Court.

In support of his submissions learned counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Ranvir Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2003(2) PLJR 722 and the case of M/s Raj Kishore and Comp. vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1) 1999(PLJR 802.

Learned counsel for the respondents though defended the order but could not controvert the above submissions.

Section 19(1) of the Act provides thus:

Reference to Commissioners.--(1) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation (including any question as to whether a person injured is or is not a workman) or as to the amount or duration of compensation (including any question as to the nature or extent of disablement), the question shall, in default of agreement be settled by a Commissioner.

Therefore, it is evident that when the claim of the applicant is contested the matter has to be settled by a Commissioner.

According to Section 20 the State Government may by notification appoint any person to be a Commissioner.

So when according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has been appointed as Commissioner under the Act for contested cases and this is not controverted by the other side, and the impugned order shows that the appellant had contested the claim of the applicant-respondent, it is evident that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner to deal with the case and passed the impugned order. This view also finds support from the above decisions relied on by the Insurance Company/appellant. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Deputy Labour Commissioner is directed to refer the matter to the Labour Court.