1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 267/2011 (Vidhya Ravindra Baviskar VERSUS Janabai Surendra Koshti & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.R. Saboo, counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.S. Narwade, counsel for the R-1 to 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 11 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation on 27.10.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner to frame the issue of absence of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. According to the petitioners, the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Buldana did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and it was necessary for the respondent nos.1 to 4 to have filed the application before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Jalgaon. It was the case of the petitioners that the accident had occurred at Ajanta, which was within the jurisdiction of Jalgaon. The petitioners stated in the application for framing of the preliminary issue that the respondent nos.1 to 3 had wrongly shown their residence at Malkapur to file the application before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation at Buldana. In any case, according to the petitioners, the Commissioner, Workmen’s 2 Compensation, Buldana ought to have issued a notice in Form-A to the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation at Jalgaon in view of the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation (Venue of Proceedings) Rules, 1996. The application was seriously opposed by the respondents and it was pointed out to the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Buldana that at the relevant time when the application under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was filed, the respondent resided at Malkapur, which was within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation at Buldana. It is the case of the respondents that the civil suit was filed by the respondents at Jalgaon, as the immovable property belonging to the respondents was situated at Jalgaon and the respondent had sought a declaration in that suit that they were the owners of the suit property and the defendants be restrained from interfering with their possession over the suit property, which was situated at Jalgaon. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Buldana, by the impugned order dated 27.10.2010, rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The Commissioner rightly relied on the fact that at the relevant time in the year 2008 when the application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was filed, the respondents were residing at Malkapur, which fell within the jurisdiction of Buldana Court. The respondents had filed affidavit and made a statement on oath that the respondent nos.1 to 3 were the residents of Malkapur. The Commissioner rightly did not rely on the address stated in the Regular Civil Suit No.17/2010 by 3 holding that the suit was instituted at Bhusawal as the immovable property was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Bhusawal Court. The Commissioner rightly held that under the Workmen’s Compensation (Venue of Proceedings) Rules, 1996, it was permissible for the defendants claiming compensation to file an application under Section 22 at a place where they ordinarily resided. The Commissioner was justified in holding that merely because the suit was pending in Bhusawal Court, the respondents could not have been prevented from initiating the proceedings before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation at Buldana. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules of 1996, the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Buldana was required to give notice in Form-A to the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation at Jalgaon has no relevance for considering the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order dated 27.10.2010 as the same is a mere formality and the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Buldana can as well give a notice in Form-A to the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Jalgaon. Since the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Buldana is just and proper, the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE