Navin Sinha, J.
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 3 despite valid service of notice.
2. The short question for consideration in this case is, if the respondent No. 2, Deputy Labour Commissioner, was competent to hear the Workmen compensation Case No. 6/2001 instituted by the respondent No. 3 when the petitioner had questioned the status as a workman of the petitioner.
3. In pursuance of institution of the compensation case by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner entered appearance and contested her status denying that she was a workman under the petitioner. The proceedings are pending. The challenge is to the jurisdictional aspect of the proceeding.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 19 of the Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') if a question arises as to whether a person is a workman or not in respect of the compensation claimed under the Act, the matter has to be adjudicated by the Commissioner appointed under Section 20 of the Act. It is submitted that the State Government has issued S.O. No. 1188 L&E; dated 31.12.1991 conferring certain powers on the Deputy Labour Commissioner to examine the claims for compensation under the Act. The notification draws limitations on the powers of the Deputy Labour Commissioner to hear uncontested matters and provides that contested matters shall be transferred to the presiding Officer of the Labour Court who is ex officio Chairman under the Workmens Compensation Act. He next relies upon a judgment of this Court in 1999 (1) PLJR 803, Raj Kishan and Company v. The State of Bihar and Ors. to submit that the present proceedings Initiated before the Deputy Labour Commissioner are completely without jurisdiction and the Deputy Labour Commissioner by the impugned order dated 16.10.2001 had no authority to determine his own jurisdiction erroneously and usurp jurisdiction thereby.
5. This Court upon hearing Counsels for the parties is satisfied that in a contested matter like the present the authority competent to decide the case would be the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court in terms of the Workmens Compensation Act and government notification Issued thereunder. This Court need not say anything further on this aspect except quote para 6 from the Judgment of Messrs Raj Kishan & Company (Supra) as under:
6. So far the point of jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 is concerned, Counsel for the respondents could not point out any other provisions whereby, in a case where the claim of a workman is contested, the Deputy Labour Commissioner can also decide himself, without proper adjudication by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.
6. In the result this application is allowed.
This Court therefore considers it proper to direct that Workmens Compensation Case No. 6/2001 shall stand transferred from the Court of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna to the court of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna and disposed of in accordance with law.