PETITIONER: DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ORISSA, BHUBANESWAR Vs. RESPONDENT: ABHIMANYU GOUDA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/1997 BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao
Ms. Meena Chakraborty, and Raj Kumar Mehta, Advs. for the
appellant
J U D G M E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered;
S.B. MAJMUDAR, J
In this appeal by special leave the order of the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack dated August 17, 1981 passed in
Civil Revision No.2 of 1981 has been brought in challenge.
The question involved is one or jurisdiction of the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Orissa to entertain claims for
workmen’s compensation in connection with the accident
caused to the workmen in the course of and arising out of
employment at Rourkela in Orissa State. The High Court in
the impugned judgment has refused to review its earlier
decision to the effect that it is only the Labour
Commissioner at Rourkela who could have entertained the
claim and not the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Orissa.
A few relevant facts leading to this proceeding may be
noted at the outset. One Smt. Dukhi Jena, respondent No.2
herein who is shown to be the proforma respondent filed a
claim petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-
commissioner for workmen’s Compensation, Orissa,
Bhubaneswar, claiming compensation from Respondent No.1,
Abhimanyu Gouda on the ground that her deceased husband was
a Khalasi in a truck belonging to Abhimanyu Gouda. He met
with a fatal accident on May 9, 1974 in the vicinity of
Rourkela town in the State of Orissa. The appellant is the
authority before who such claim was raised. The appellant
after hearing the parties exercised his jurisdiction as
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and awarded an
amount of Rs. 8,000/- by way of compensation to respondent
No.2 and made it payable by the respondent No.1. Being
aggrieved by the order of the appellant, the Deputy Labour
Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation,
Orissa at Bhubaneswar, the respondent No.1, the owner of the
truck filed an appeal in the High Court of Orissa being
Miscellaneous Appeal No.289 of 1997. The High Court by its
judgment dated November 12, 1980 allowed the appeal of the
respondent No.1 by holding that the appellant, Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Orissa at Bhubaneswar had no jurisdiction to
entertain the claim petition filed by the respondent No.2
It is pertinent to note that the appellant was not made a
party in that appeal nor was any opportunity given to the
appellant to have his say in connection with his
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The High
Court held that since the accident had taken place outside
the jurisdiction of the appellant, only the Commissioner for
workmen’s Compensation at Rourkela could entertain the claim
petition and not the appellant.
The appellant having come to know about the aforesaid
decision of the High Court moved the High Court in a review
petition which came to be disposed of on August 17,1981 by
the impugned order which recites that the application was
not maintainable and the opposite party ( O.P. ) states that
he will file a separate petition for review of the judgment
was not brought to the notice of the High Court and he was
permitted to file such application.
We may state at this state that against the original
order of the High Court dated November 12, 1980, the
respondent No.2, the original claimant, filed a civil appeal
being C.A. No. 10106 of 1983 before this Court. this court
by order dated October 28, 1983 directed the Insurance
Company to pay a sum of Rs. 8000/- to the respondent No.2 in
full and final settlement of her claims against the
Insurance Company. In addition thereto, this Court directed
the respondent No.1 to pay an equal amount of Rs. 8000/- to
the respondent No.2. It was further directed that out of Rs.
14,000/- deposited by the respondent No.1 before the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Rs. 8,000/- will be paid to the
respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to
the order of this court the Insurance Company paid a sum of
Rs. 8,000/- to the respondent No.2 and out of the deposited
amount of Rs. 14,000/- by the respondent No.1, an amount of
Rs. 8,000/- was to be paid to the respondent No.2 and the
balance amount of Rs. 6,000/- plus interest was to be
refunded to the respondent No.1. In view of the aforesaid
decision of this Court in C.A. No. 10106 of 1983 it can be
stated that the question of jurisdiction of the appellant-
Commissioner would not survious for serious consideration as
the claimant-respondent No.2 has been ordered to be paid the
full amount of compensation claimed by her against the
respondent No.1. Still however as the appellant is aggrieved
by the decision of the High Court on the question of
jurisdiction which affects large number of claim petitions
under the Act, we now proceed to examine the controversy
about the jurisdiction of the appellant to entertain the
original claim petition of the respondent No.2. So far as
this question is concerned, we must note that before the
High Court in the review proceeding it was submitted that
there was already notification issued by the State of Orissa
conferring jurisdiction on the appellant to entertain such
claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in
connection with the accidents which might have occurred in
any part of the State of Orissa. When such a notification
was pressed in service we fail to appreciate as to how the
High Court was justified in not entertaining the review
petition when e relevant notification was earlier not
brought to its notice specially when the appellant was not
given an opportunity to point out the notification before
the High Court, as he was not a party nor any notice was
issued to him in connection with that case. Therefore, it
must be held that the order on review petition dated August
17, 1981 passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and
has to be set aside.
The moot question is as to whether the High Court was
right in rejecting on the ground of jurisdiction of the
Commissioner the claim of the respondent No.2 against the
respondent No.1 in connection with the fatal accident caused
to her deceased husband during the course of and arising out
of the employment of respondent No.2’s husband under
respondent No.1 it is true that the accident had taken
place near Rourkela. Our attention was invited to the
notification issued on July 2, 1965 by the State of Orissa
in Labour, Employment and Housing Department. The said
notification was issued in exercise of the overs conferred
on the State by sub-section (1) of section 20 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The Offices listed
therein in column (1) were ordered to be Commissioners for
workmen’s compensation with respective jurisdiction as
specified in column (2) of the said notification against
each of the listed officers. At Column (2) in the said
notification was listed the Deputy Commissioner, Orissa,
Bhubaneswar, the appellant herein and the area of his
jurisdiction is shown to be the whole of the State of
Orissa. Therefore, the appellant had jurisdiction to
entertain the claims for workmen’s compensations in
connection with the accidents arising in any part of the
State of Orissa for which claims were to be lodged under the
Act against the employers. If this notification had been
seen by the High Court it could never have held that the
appellant had no jurisdiction to entrain the claim petition.
it is not in dispute that though the accident took place in
1974 the aforesaid notification of July 2, 1965 held the
field, Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion
that the appellant at the relevant time in 1974 when the
accident took place had jurisdiction to entertain the claims
petition. The order of the High Court taking the contrary
view is therefore, quashed and set aside. The appeal is
accordingly allowed. There would be no order as to costs.