Case: Morgina Begum Vs. Managing Dir., Hanuma Plantation Ltd

For convenient disposal of this case, a few facts may be mentioned. Deceased Md. Rajik Ahmed was an employee of the respondent company. He died on 14.07.2000. A petition for claiming compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act was filed by the father and mother of the deceased before the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Zone-III, Tezpur. In the said petition, the learned Commissioner, Tezpur awarded compensation of Rs.2,70,520/-. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Tezpur, the respondent company preferred an appeal before the High Court of Gauhati. Two arguments were raised before the High Court on behalf of the respondent company (appellant in the High Court), (1) that the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Tezpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and (2) the death of the deceased did not occur during the course of employment. So far as the first contention of the respondent is concerned, the High Court answered the same against the claimant and held that the Commissioner, Tezpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and accordingly it allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order of the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Tezpur, without going into the second argument. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants.

Court's reasoning:
are of the opinion that the view taken by both these High Courts is correct. A claimant can apply before the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area where the claimant ordinarily resides, and it is not always necessary to prefer a claim petition where the accident has taken place. This is for the facility of the workmen and advances the cause of welfare of the workmen. Therefore, the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the impugned order that the claim petition could only be filed at the place where the accident had taken place, cannot be sustained. Section 21(1)(b) read with its proviso is a beneficial legislation for the welfare of the workmen and by the above interpretation, it will advance the cause of the workmen. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly we set aside the impugned orderIn these circumstances, we are of the view that the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Tezpur had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition of the appellants. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has considered the appeal only on the ground of jurisdiction and not on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded this fact. Therefore, we remit the matter to the High Court to consider the case of the respondent herein on merits with regard to the second point urged before it and decide the same expeditiously