Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29,7.1999, passed by the Deputy Labour -Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Work mens Commnasation Court, Gaya in W.C. case No. 22 of 1998 (Most. Parmada Devi V/s. Shri Bishwanath Singh & others), whereby he has dismissed the claim application under section 10 of the Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Late Deo Bansh Singh, husband of the present claimant, was in the employment of Bishwanath Singh, the original respondent, before this Court. He (Bishwanath Singh) died during the pendency of the present appeal and has been substituted by his three sons who are now the respondents. According to the claim application, Deo Bansh Singh was an employee of Sri Bishwanath Singh, and died during the course of his duty while driving the motor transport owned by the said Bishwanath Singh. The present appellant filed claim application which has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner has erred in dismissing the claim application at the threshold in view of the contest set up by the owner of the vehicle. Relying on the provisions of section 20(1) of the Act, he submits that once the employer contests the claim, the matter has to be adjudicated by the designated Commissioner which in the present case is the Labour Court having territorial jurisdiction over the issue. He has relied on two judgment of this Court. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order and consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner did not have jurisdiction in terms of section 20(1) of the Act. It appears from the Government notification bearing S.O. No. 1188, L & E. dated 31.12.1991, issued in terms of section 20(1) of the Act that the Presiding Officer of the concerned Labour Court has been declared as the ex-officio Commissioner for Workmens 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 exofficio Commissioner for Workmens Compensation to deal with non-contested cases only arising under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. 5. Officer of the Labour Court has been declared as exofficio Commissioner for Workmens Compensation to deal with non-contested cases only arising under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. 5. It is manifest from a perusal of the impugned order that the employer contested the claim case. In that view of the matter, the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Once such a contest was set up as has happened in the present case, he was bound in law to refer the matter to the Labour Court having jurisdiction over the matter for adjudication. Learned counsel for the appellant rightly relies upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in 1999 (1) PLJR 803 (Messers Raj Kishan Co. V/s. The State of Bihar & others), as well as the judgment dated 2.8.2002, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.A. No. 108/2000 (Most. Blgai Devi V/s. Divisional Manager, Railway, Mugalsarai & Ors.). 6. In the results, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside, and the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, under Workmens Compensation Act, Magadh Division, Swarajpuri, Gaya, is directed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. Learned counsel for the parties agree that they shall appear on their own and no notice is required.