Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1457 (PAT)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar

2013-12-13

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Oriental Insurance Company and learned counsels for the State and for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner Insurance Company seeks quashing of the order dated 25.06.2007 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Munger Division, Begusarai, in W.C. Case no. 07 of 2005 by which he has directed the petitioners to pay Rs.3,58,649.20 as compensation to respondent no.3, instead of directing respondent no.4, and that too without jurisdiction. 3. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Shortly stated, the respondent no.4, M/s Shree Metallic Ltd. having a steel plant in the State of Odisha had given work contract to M/s Tharmax Ltd, Pune. On 13.08.2004 due to alleged heavy rains part of the compound wall fell down and six labourers died while they were sleeping. A first information report was lodged in which the Police submitted final form stating that the deceased had died due to collapse of wall on account of heavy rain for the past several days and the labourers, who died, were casual labourers. The final form was accepted by the concerned court. The respondent no.3 filed an application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Munger Division, Begusarai. The petitioner, Insurance Company appeared and prayed for time for filing reply. The employer also appeared and cross-examined the applicant. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 25.06.2007 was passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, acting as Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is without jurisdiction for two reasons. Firstly, it is submitted that the moment there is a contest by the parties the Deputy Labour Commissioner acting as Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation cannot proceed in the matter and decide the quantum of compensation; such jurisdiction he has only in uncontested cases. In case there is any contest or expression of desire to contest, as was the case of the Insurance Company, which could not file its reply, then the Deputy Labour Commissioner ought to have transferred the case to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court as the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 5. In case there is any contest or expression of desire to contest, as was the case of the Insurance Company, which could not file its reply, then the Deputy Labour Commissioner ought to have transferred the case to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court as the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 5. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel relies upon a Notification bearing S.O. No.1188 L & E dated 31.12.1991 issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar in exercise of power conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 whereby the Officers named in column 2 of Schedule annexed thereto were to be ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction as specified in column 4 of the said Schedule and which further declares that the officers other than the Presiding Officer of the Labour Courts as ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation shall deal with non-contested cases only arising under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that the said Notification further provides that claim for compensation shall be filed before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation for uncontested cases and if in case the same becomes contested it will be transferred to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court as ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The said notification empowers the Deputy Commissioner of Labour of different divisions as the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation for different areas, apart from the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court of different territorial areas. 6. It is, thus, submitted by learned counsel that under the statutory notification the Deputy Labour Commissioner is not empowered to decide a contested case and, therefore, the Deputy Labour Commissioner ought to have transferred the present case to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court having jurisdiction over the concerned area. 7. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the provisions of Section 21(1) (b) when the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is moved of the place where the employee or in case of his death the dependent claiming the compensation ordinarily resides, then such matter shall not be processed by such Commissioner without giving notice in the prescribed manner to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place and the State Government concerned. It is, thus, submitted by the learned counsel that the matter having been decided by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation without issuing notice to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation of the area and the State of Odisha where the accident took place, the order passed by him is without jurisdiction. 8. Learned counsel for the State and for respondent no.3 are unable to oppose the aforesaid submission in view of the fact that these issues are no longer res integra. 9. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company, this Court is of the view that the said submissions have to be accepted in the light of the relevant statutory Notification and statutory provisions. It is evident from the Notification dated 31.12.1991 aforesaid that all contested cases have to be mandatorily transferred by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court having jurisdiction of the area and the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has no jurisdiction to proceed in such contested matter. Thus, in the present case, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Munger, Division, Begusarai, could not have proceeded to pass the order as he has done and he ought to have transferred the case to the Presiding Officer of the Competent Labour Court. 10. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act while it is open to a claimant to make a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, now Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation after the amendment by the Amendment Act, 2009 with effect from 2010, the said Commissioner could only proceed in the matter after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation having jurisdiction over the area where the accident took place and also the concerned State Government. That not having been done in the present matter in the impugned order dated 25.06.2007 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Workmen’s Compensation is without jurisdiction for the said reason also. 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed. That not having been done in the present matter in the impugned order dated 25.06.2007 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Workmen’s Compensation is without jurisdiction for the said reason also. 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed. The order dated 25.06.2007 of the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Munger Division, Begusarai in WC Case No. 07 of 2005 is quashed and the matter is remanded to him to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. In view of the contest being made he shall transfer the case to the Presiding Officer of the competent Labour Court of the area who shall proceed afresh in the matter after complying with the provision of Section 21(1)(b) of the Act.