JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. In this Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act/Workmen's Compensation Act, the appellant has assailed the validity of the judgment/Award 30.06.2015 passed by the Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu.

2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition before the Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu for grant of compensation on account of death of Sh. Ashok Kumar, who had allegedly died on 18.06.2010 while driving the Tipper bearing temporary registration No. JMU-9483 near Dalwas National Highway 1-A. Respondent No. 4 was also impleaded as party respondent in the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before ALC Jammu along with the appellant company being the insurer of the said Tipper. It is further stated that the appellant company after its service filed an objections to the claim petition by taking various defences available to it. The company has raised specific defences that the deceased driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and further the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In order to prove that the deceased driver Ashok Kumar was holding a fake and forged Driving Licence, the appellant company produced its official Mr. Vikas Rana and Sr. Assistant Mr. Bal Krishan from the office of Licensing Authority, Solan (H.P.) as witnesses in the case. These two witnesses produced by the appellant company prove that the driving licence held by the deceased driver Ashok Kumar was a fake and forged document. It is further stated that the Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu vide his judgment dated 30.06.2015 rejected the defences raised by the appellant company and passed an award of Rs. 10,09,936/- in favour of respondent No. 1 to 3 and against the appellant company.

3. The appellant company being aggrieved of the judgment/award impugned challenges its legality, validity and correctness on the following amongst other grounds:

(a) That the judgment/award impugned is ex facie bad, contrary to the facts of the case and law on the point and the same therefore deserves to be set aside.

(b) That the award impugned is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The award impugned has been passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner in the capacity of Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act 1923. It is submitted that no notification has been issued by the government appointing Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu as Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Otherwise also, as per Section 20 of the Employees Compensation Act, the Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint any person who is or has been a member of State Judicial Service for a period not less than five years or is or has been for not less than five years an Advocate or Pleader or is or has been a Gazetted Officer for not less than five years having education qualification an experience is personal management, Human Resource Development and Industrial relation to be a Commissioner for Employees Compensation for such area as may be specified in the notification. The present Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu who has passed the award impugned does not fall in any of the categories provided in Section 20 of Employees Compensation Act. The Award impugned thus having been passed by an incompetent person, is without jurisdiction an nullity in the eyes of law and the same therefore, deserves to be set aside and quashed.

(c) That the award impugned holding the appellant company to be liable to satisfy the award amount is wholly illegal and erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

(d) That though the claim petition was filed by the respondent's