DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ORISSA BHUBANESWARversusABHIMANYU GOUDA AND ANR.

                 DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ORISSA                                 A
                           BHUBANESWAR
                                 v.
                     ABHIMANYU GOUDA AND ANR.

                              NOVEMBER 4, 1997
                                                                                    B
           [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO,_JJ.]


         Labour Laws :

           Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 20 (1)-Notification dated      C
    2. 7.1965 conferring powers -Jurisdiction to entertain claims-Deputy Labour
    Commissioner, Orissa-Claim petition-Compensation awarded-On appeal,
    High Court held no jurisdiction to entertain claim petition-Review Petition
    dismissed- On appeal, Held, appellant has jurisdiction to entertain claims-
    Order of High Court set aside.                                                  D
J          The husband of respondent No. 2 while working with respondent No.
    1, met with an accident and died. Respondent no. 2 filed a claim petition
    before the appellant-Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for
    workmen's compensation. The appellant awarded an amount of Rs. 8000 as
    compensation. On appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal and held that        E
    appellant had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The appellant
    filed a review petition on the ground that a notification dated July 2, 1965
    was already issued by the State Government conferring jurisdiction to
    entertain the claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The said
    review petition was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. By an earlier order
    this Court had already directed tlie respondent to pay full amount of           F
    compensation to the claimant.

         Allowing the appeal, this Court

         HELD: 1.1. The appellant-Deputy Labour Commissioner at the
    relevant time when the accident took place had jurisdiction to entertain the    G
    claims petition. [53-B]

          1.2. The order on review petition passed by the High Court cannot be
    sustained and has to be set aside. Before the High Court in the review
    proceeding it was submitted that there was already notification issued by the   H
                                         49
    50                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A State conferring jurisdiction on the appellant to entertain claims under the
    Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in connection with the accidents which
    might have occurred in any part of the State. At column (2) in the notification
    dated July 2, 1965 was listed the Deputy Commissioner, Orissa, Bhubaneswar,
    the appellant herein, and the area of his jurisdiction is shown to be the whole
B   of the State ofOrissa. Therefore, the appellant had jurisdiction to entertain
    the claims for workmen's compensation in connection with the accidents
    arising in any part of the State ofOrissa for which claims were to be lodged
    under the Act against the employees. When such a notification was pressed
    in service, the High Court was not justified in not entertaining the review
    petition. 152-C-D; G-HI
c         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5455 of I 984.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.81 of the Orissa High Court
    in C. R. No. 2 of I 98 I.

D         Ms. Meena Chakraborty and Raj Kumar Mehta for the Appellant.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. In this appeal by special leave the order of the
    High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dated August I 7, I 981 passed in Civil
E   Revision No. 2 of 1981 has been brought in challenge.

    •      The question involved is one of 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
F   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
G 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
H   in the vicinity of Rourke la town in the State of Orissa. The appellant is the
        DY. LABOUR COMMR. "· ABHIMANYU GOUDA [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.l            SJ

authority before whom such claim was raised. The appellant after hearing the A
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. I Being aggrieved by the
order of the appellant, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner
for Workmen's Compensation, Orissa at Bhubaneswar, the respondent No. I B
the owner of the truck filed an appeal in the High Court of Orissa being
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 289 of 1977. The High Court by its judgment dated
November 12, 1980 allowed the appeal of the respondent No. I by holding
that the appellant, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Orissa at Bhubaneswar had
no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by respondent No. 2. It is
pertinent to note that the appellant was not made a party in that appeal nor C
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.
                                                                                  D
       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 on the ground that the   E
relevant notification was not brought to the notice of the High Court and he
was permitted to file such application.

       We may state at this stage 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. 10106of1983 before this Court. This Court F
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. I 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 G
No. I 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 th is
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. I,
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. H
    52                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.'

A I. 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 survive 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. I. Still however as the appellant is aggrieved
B   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
C   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 ente1taining the review petition when the relevant
    notification was earlier not brought to its notice specially when the appellant
D   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.
E
           The moot question is as to whether the High G~urt wits right in rejecting
    on the ground of jurisdiction of the Commissioner the claim of the respondent
    No. 2 against the respondent No. I 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
F   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 powers conferred on the State by sub-section (I) of Section
    20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. The officers listed therein in
G   column (I) 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
H   compensation in connection with the accidents arising in any part of the State
           DY. LABOUR COMMR. v. ABHIMANYU GOUDA [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.l       53
of Orissa for which claims were to be lodged under the Act against the A
employers. If this notification had been seen by the High Court it could never
have held that the appellant had no jurisdiction to entertain 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 B
accident took place had jurisdiction to entertain the claims petition. The order •
of the High Court taking the contrary view is therefor~, quashed and set
aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There would be no order as to
costs.

S.V.K.I.                                                    Appeal allowed.