Holding

Section 21(1)(b) read with its proviso confers jurisdiction on the commissioner where the dependent claimant ordinarily resides, so the Commissioner, Tezpur was competent to entertain the claim.

Summary

The deceased employee of Hanuman Plantation Ltd. died in an accident at Nagaon. His parents, who had moved to Tezpur after his death, filed a compensation claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner, Tezpur, which awarded Rs. 2.70 lakh. The company appealed, arguing that the Tezpur Commissioner lacked jurisdiction because the accident occurred in Nagaon and also contended that the death was not in the course of employment. The Gauhati High Court held the Tezpur Commissioner had no jurisdiction and set aside the award. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, interpreting Section 21(1)(b) to mean that a claim may be filed where the dependent claimant ordinarily resides, and upheld the notice requirement in the proviso, thereby confirming the Tezpur Commissioner’s jurisdiction. The matter was remitted to the High Court to decide the merits of the second contention.

Issues considered

Whether the Commissioner, Tezpur had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under Section 21(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act when the claimant resided away from the accident site.
Interpretation of the term 'ordinarily resides' in the context of Section 21(1)(b).
Whether the notice provision in the proviso to Section 21(1) was complied with.

Legislation cited

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923s. 21(1)(b)

Subjects

Workmen's Compensation Actjurisdictionordinary residenceSection 21migrant labourbeneficial legislationcompensation claim

Judgment

A MORGINA BEGUM
v.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
B
(A.K. MATHU~ AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.)

---<
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: -<:

c s. 21 (l)(b)-Jurisdiction-Accident in Nagaon resulting in death
ofdeceased-Parents ofdeceased started residing with son-in-law at
Tezpur for their livelihood-Claim petition filed by parents before the
Commissioner, Tezpur-Maintainability of-Held: Maintainable-
Interpretation ofstatutes-Beneficial legislation.
D
Deceased was an employee of the respondent Company. He died
....(
in accident which took place in Nagaon. His parents filed petition for I

claiming compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act before the
Commissioner, Tezpur. In the said petition, Commissioner, Tezpur
E awarded compensation of Rs.2. 70 lacs. The respondent company
challenged the award before the High Court raising two arguments, that
the Commissioner, Tezpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the ~laim
petition and the death of the deceased did not occur during course of
employment
-'1
F
The High Coqrt held that the Commissioner, Tezpur had no
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and accordingly set aside the
order ofthe Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur, without
going into the second argument
G In appeal to this Court, appellant-claimant contended thattheclaim
petition was flied at Tezpur because both the claimants, i.e., the father y-.
and mother of the deceased started residing at Tezpurwith their son-
in-law after the death of their son.

H 372
J MORGINA BEGUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, 373
HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD.
Allowing the appeal on issue ofjurisdiction and remitting the matter A
to High Court to consider case ofrespondent on merits, the Court
HELD: 1. S.21(1)(b) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
provides that the claim petition may be filed by the claimant where the
claimant ordinarily resides. The expression 'ordinarily resides' means B
where the person claiming compensation normally resides at the time
of fding the claim petition. The proviso to S.21(1) provides that in case
)·
Commissioner, other than the Commissioner havingjurisdiction over
~ the area in which the accident took place, entertains the claim petition
then he is required to give a notice to the Commissioner having C
jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned.
(Para 6) (377-A, B, CJ
1.2. The idea is that migrant labourers all over the country often
go elsewhere' to cam their livelihood. When an accident takes place then
in order to facilitate the claimants they may make their claim not D
necessarily at the place where the accident took place but also at the
place where they ordinarily reside. It is not possible for poor workmen
or their dependents who reside in one part ofthe country and shift from
one place to another for their livelihood to necessarily go to the place
of the accident for filing a claim petition. It may be very expensive for E
the claimants to pursue such a claim petition because of the financial
and other hardship. Labour statutes are for the welfare ofthe workmen.
Therefore, the view taken by the High Court that the claim petition could
only be filed at the place where the accident had taken place, cannot be
sustained. S.21(1)(b) read with its proviso is a beneficial legislation for F
the welfare of the workmen and by the above interpretation, it will
advance the cause of the workmen. [Para 7) [377-G; 378-A, E, F]

Bharat Singhv. Management ofNew Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi
and Ors., [1986) 2 SCC 614, relied on. G
S.K Saukat Ali Alias Sekho S.K v. Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack and Ors.,
(1999) 2 Transport and Accident Cases 638 (Ori) and Noorjahan v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd Hyderbad andAnr., (1999) 3 T.A.C. 276 (AP), H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A approved.
2.1. Both the claimants, i.e., the father and mother of the deceased
have been examined and they appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and
PW-2. PW-1, the father of the deceased has clearly stated in his
examination-in-chiefthatthey are residing with their son-in-law atTezpur
B for their livelihood. Similarly, the mother of the deceased has stated on
the same lines that they are residing at Tezpurwith their son-in-law. A
suggestion given to her that they were residing at Nagaon has been
emphatically denied by her. The statement of these two witnesses that
they are presently residing at Tezpur for their livelihood was believed
C by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur.
[Para 8] [378-G; 379-A]

2.2. Respondent's contention that simply by saying that they are
residing atTezpur is not enough to prove their statement but they should
D produce documents to show that in fact they are residing at Tezpur is
not accepted as there is a clear statement by both the claimants that
they started residing at Tezpur after the death of their son. If the
respondent wanted to prove that they were deposing falsely, he should
have cross-examined these witnesses and challenged their testimony
E in the witness box on this point, which has not been done.
[Para 8] (379-B, C]

3. The High Court has considered the appeal only on the ground
ofjurisdiction and not on merits. Hence matter is remitted to High Court
to consider the case of the respondent on merits with regard to the second
F
point urged before it and decide the same expeditiously.
(Para 9] [379-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4548 of
2007.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2006 of the High Court
of Gauhati in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 86 of 2002. t·.
Manish Goswami (for Mis. Map & Co.) for the Appellant.
C. Mukund, Ashok Jain, Pankaj Jain and Bijoy Kun1ar Jain for the
H Respondent.
j
MORGINA BEGUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, 375
HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered A
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and
order dted 10.2.2006 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati
whereby the High Court has set aside the order of the Commissioner, B
Workmen's Compensation, Tezpurdated 04.10.2002 .
....
)-
3. 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 c
compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act was filed by the
father and mother of the deceased before the Commissioner, Workmen's
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, D
Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur, the respondent company preferred
t-
' an appeal before the High Court ofGauhati. Two arguments were raised
before the High Court on behalf of the respondent company (appellant in
the High Court), (1) that the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation,
Tezpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and (2) the death E
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 arid accordingly
it allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order
F
of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur, without going
into the second argument. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred
by the claimants.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case
whether the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur had G
' .. . jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition or not, it will be necessary for
us to refere to the necessary provisions of the Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923 (hereinafter for short 'The Act'). Section 21 (1) of the Act
which is relevant for our propose is reproduced hereunder:-
H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A "21. Venue ofproceedings and transfer:-(1) Where any matter
under this Act is to be done by or before a Commissioner, the
same shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and to any rules
made hereunder, be done by or before the Commissioner for the
area in which-
B
(a) the accident took place which resulted in the injury; or
(b) the workman or in case of his death, the dependent claiming
the compensation ordinarly resides; or
(c) the employer has his registered office:
c
Provided that no matter shall be processed before or by a
Commissioner, other than the Commissioner havingjurisdictiori over
the ~a in which the accident took place, without his giving notice
in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the
D Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State
Government concerned:
Provided further that, where the workman, being the master
or a ship or a seaman or the captain or a member of the crew of .
an aircraft or a workman in a motor vehicle or a Company, meets
E with the accident outside India any such matter may be done by
or before a Commissioner for the area in which the owner or agent
of the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle resides or carries on business
or the registered office of tht: Company is situate, as the case may
be." -+
F
5. There is no dispute that the accident in the present case took place
at Nagaon arid hence the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation at
Nagaon also had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. However, in
the present case the claim petition was filed at Tezpur because both the
G claimants, i.e., the father and mother of deceased Md. Rajik Ahmed,
started residing at Tezpur v.ith their son-in-law after the death of their son
Md. Rajik Ahmed. The question to be decided in the present case is when
the accident taok place at Nagaon and the claimants were residing at the
time of the death of their sort at Nagaon but after the death of their son
H Md. Rajik Ahmed, they had shifted to Tezpur can me Commissioner,
J.-
MORGINA BEGUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, 377
HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD.
Workmen's Compensation at Tezpur legitimately entertain the claim A
petition.
6. Section 21 (1 )(b) of the Act clearly provides that the claim petition
may be filed by the claimant where the claimant ordinarily n>sides. In our
opinion, the expressesion 'ordinarly resides' means where the person B ·
claiming compensation normally resides at the time offiling the claim
petition. The proviso to Section 21(1) which is also relevant for the
present controversy, provides that in case the Commissioner, other than
the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in whcih the accident
took place, entertains the claim petition then he shall give a notice to the C
Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the state Government
concerned. The Amended Section 21 has been specifically introduced in
the Act by Amending Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15th
September, 1995 in order to benefit and facili!ate the claimants. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Amendment of the Act, a copy D
of which has been produced before us, clearly mentions that the
amendment has been brought about for benefits of the claimants viz. either
the workmen or their dependents. The relevant portion of the Stateme2t
of Objects and Reasons, reads as under:-
"It is also proposed to introduce provision for facilitating migrant E
workmen to file compensation claims before the Commissioners
having jurisdiction over the area where they or their dependents
ordinarily reside. Provision for transfer of compensatfon from one
-f- Commissioner to another has also been made."
F
7. The idea behind introduction of this amendment is that migrant
labourers all over the country often go elsewhere to earn their livelihood.
When an aecident takes place then in order to facilitate the claimants they
may make their claim not necessarily at the place where the accident took·
place but also at the place where they ordinarily reside. This amendment G
was introduced in the Act in 1995. This was done with a very laudable
object, otherwise it could cause hardship to the claimant to claim
compensation under the Act. It is not possible for poor workmen or thei~
dependents who reside in one part of the country and shift from one place
to another for their livelihood to necessarily go to the place of the accident H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I 0 S.C.R.

A for filing a claim petition. It may be very expensive for the claimants to
pursue in such a claim petition because of the financial and other hardship. -,_
It would entail the poor claimant traveling from one place to another for
getting compensation. Labour statutes are for the welfare of the workmen.
This Court has in the case of Bharat Singh v. Managem~nt of New
B Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi and Ors., [1986] 2 SCC, 614 has
taken the view that welfare legislation should be given a purposive
interpretation safeguarding the rights of the have-nots rather than giving a
~
literal construction. In case of doubt the interpretation in favour of the ~
worker should be preferred. The view which we are taking has been taken
c by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of SK Saukat
Ali Alias Sekho SK v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-
cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack and Ors., (1999) 2
Transport and Accident Cases 638 (Ori) and the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in the case of Noorjahan v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
D Hyderabad and Anr., (1999) 3 T.A.C. 276 (AP). Hence, we are of the
opinion that the view taken by both these High Courts is correct. A ·-1
claimant can apply before the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the I

area where the claimant resides, and it is not always necessary to prefer
a claim petition where the accident has taken palce. This is for the facility
E of the workmen and advances the cause of welfare of the worken.
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 ____.,,
F 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 order.
8. Now, adverting to the facts of the present case, in the present
G
case, both the claimants, i.e., the father and mother of the deceased have 't:.
been examined and they appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and PW-
2. PW-1, the father of the deceased Md. Rajik Ahmed, has clearly stated
in his ex:unination in chief that they are residing with their son-in-law at
Tezpur for their livelihood. Similarly, the mother of the deceased has stated
H
MORGINA BEGUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, 379
HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD.
on the same lines that they are residing at Tezpur with their son-in-law. A A
suggestion given to her that they were residing at Nagaon has been
emphatically denied by her. The statement of these two witnesses makes
it clear that they are presently residing at Tezpur for their livelihood. The
statement of both these witnesses was believed by the Commissioner,
Workmen's Compenstation, Tezpur. Learned counsel for the respondent B
submitted that simply by saying that they are residing at Tezpur is not
enough to prove their statement but they should produce documents to
show that in fact they are residing at Tezpur. We see no reason to agree
with the learned counsel for the respondent when there is a clear statement
by both the claimants that they started residing at Tezpur after the death C
of their son. If the respondent wanted to prove that they were deposing
falsely, he should have cross-examined these witnesses and challenged
their testimony in the witnesses box on this point, which has not been done.
In the present case, we are satisfied that the statement of the deceased's
father and mother is trustworthy that they are ordinarily residing at Tezpur, D
and hence the Commissioner, Workmen's Compenstation, Tezpur has
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The Commissioner, Tezpur has
also given notice to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensatic n,
Nagaon as well as the State Government in compliance with the proviso
to Section 21(1) of the Act. E

9. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Commission~r,
Workmen's 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 F
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.
G
,, 10. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
I'
Appeal allowed.
llFG