tw' HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / tt. A. (O N0.231 OF 2006 APPELLANT ^SPON&ENTS Versus Fieldspares Sales and Services. Ashvini Kumar Thakur & another FOR JVDGVIETST ON ^ / »6 /2007 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge h A. IQ N0.231 OF 2006 Versus Fieldspares Sales and Services, Through: The Branch AAona9er, 120 AAount Road, Near Saraf Chamber, Sadar, Nagpur (AA.H.) Bilaspur, Lodhipora Old Sarkanda, Near Old Employment Exchange Office, Bilaspur (C.&.) l.Ashvini Kumar Thakur, 5/o Shri Brijraj Singh Thakur, aged about 33 years, ft/o Village- Chin, Post Nava, Btock Mungeli, Distt, Biiaspur, At present R/o Qtr. No. E- 151, yadunandon Nagcr, Tifra, Bilaspur. 2. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Labour Court. Bilaspur Present: . 5.P. Kaie, Advocate for the appellant. JU&6MENT ffSelivered on // /^/2007) 1. Heard on (A.C.P. No.1706/2006, an application for- condonation of delay in fiting this appeal, as ihe instant appeal has been preferred with a delay of 314 days, as per office note dated 4.9.2006. 2. Learned counsel for the appeitant submitted that immediotely after the award was passed certifidd copy of the impugned oword was obtoined on 29.8.2005 and the same was sent to the l-1ead Office by Bilaspur Branch along with papers vide Annexure A-2 and thereafter, a reminder was sent on 4.1.2006 vide Annexure P-4. However, the Head Office communicated that the cose file is mispiaced due to ^ ^ shifting and in the meanwhile, R.R.C. was issued on 19.6.2006. Uitimately,.the case file was traced on 29.8.2006 at Nagpur and appeal was filed on 2.9.2006 after depositing the sum awarded before the court below. Affidavit in support of this opplication has been filed. 3. From the reasons assigned for delay in filing the instant appeal, it is evident that the appellant had not been diligent in taking steps to file the appeal, which was required to be filed within a period of 60 days. 4. Even otherwise for entertaining an appeal by an employer, the appellant has to demonstrate that a substantiai question of law is involved in the appeal. The only substantial question of iaw agitated by iearned counsel for the appellant is that the accident occurred at Wordha (MS) and the application for conipensation has been filed by the workman in Biiaspur, whereas, as per Rule 3 of the Workmen's Compensation (Venue of Proceedings) Rules, 1996 (for short 'Rules, 1996') application under Section 19 or Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') is to be processed before the Comniissioner for the area in which the accident took place which resulted in tbe injury. Therefore, the whole proceedings before the court below is vitiated for want of territorial jurisdiction. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman is the domiciie of Village Cheenu, Tehsil Mungeli, District BHaspur. 6. Rule 3 (1) of the Rules, 1996 reads as under:- "3. Processing of an applisation.- (1) An application under Section 19 or Section 22 shall be processed before or by a Commissioner for the area in which, a) The accident took place which resulted in the '; or lhs;l *;: " ^3s^cG^^;^ =^g ^7 b) The workmen or in cose of his death the dependents claiming the compensation ordinarily reside; or c) The empioyer has his registered office; Provided that no matter shall be processed before or by a Commissioner' on that the Commissioner having the jurisdiction over the area in which the nccident took place without his giving notice in Form-A to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State ©overnmentconcerned." 7. Since the workman is undisputedly originally resident of District iilaspur, therefore, the Commissioner at Bilaspur had Jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 8. The court beioii/ on the basis of disQbility certificote of Ex.P-19, which has been du!y proved by the concerned doctor and considering that the workman was engaged as 'Sales Representative' and cannot perform hls duties by remaining stationary at one place and he is required to go from one p!ace to another has assessed the loss of earning capacity of the workman 100%. The above findin9 of fact is based on the evidence available on record and as such, is not perverse. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the instant appe&1 cannot be entertained firstly on the ground of delay and secondly, the same does not involve any substantial question of law. 10. In the resu!t, the appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be disrnissed and the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge