http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.