JUDGEMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 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, Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur dated 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 compensation under the Women'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, Workmen's 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, Workmen's 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. 50 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, 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 jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition or not, it will be necessary for us to refer 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 purposes is reproduced hereunder:-

"21. Venue of proceedings 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 Commissiooer for the area in which-

(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 ordinarily resides; or

(c) the employer has his registered office:

Provided that no matter shall be processed before or by a Commissioner, other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place, without his giving notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned:

Provided further that, where the workman. being the master of 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 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 the Company is situate, as the case may be."

5. There is no dispute that the accident in the present case took place at Nagaon and 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 claimants, i.e., the father and mother of deceased Md.Rajik Ahmed, started residing at Tezpur with 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 took place at Nagaon and the claimants were residing at the time of the death of their son at Nagaon but after the death of their son Md. Rajik Ahmed