SATYESHWAR ROY, J.

1. By this application under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners, a partnership firm, has prayed for quashing Annexure-3, order dated 10-1-1981 passed by respondent No. 2 by which it has held that the application filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 under the Workmens Compensation Act (the W.C. Act) was maintainable.

2. Balkishan Vyas, a workman of the petitioners died of an accident in course of his employment on 19-4-1978 while he was travelling by a scooter belonging to the petitioners on the Khunti-Ranchi Road. An application was filed by respondent No. 1, the widow, before the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act (the M.V. Act) for compensation for the death of her husband. This was registered as M.J.C. No. 180 of 1979 in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. While this application was pending respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner under the W.C. Act who referred the matter to the Labour Court and the same was registered as W.C. No. 9 of 1980. In the later case an objection was taken by the petitioners that in view of the fact that respondent No. 1 has already filed an application under the M.V. Act, her application under the W.C. Act was not maintainable. By the impugned order respondent No. 2 has rejected that contention of the petitioners.

3. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that in view of S.110-AA of the M.V. Act the application under W.C. Act was not maintainable. It was contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 in reply that, that Section is no bar for maintainability of the application. The short point, therefore, is whether S.110-AA of the M.V. Act is a bar for an application under the W.C. Act for compensation arising out of an accident which is already the subject matter of a claim before the Tribunal.

4. Sec.110-AA of the M.V. Act reads as follows :-

"Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, where the death or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both."

This was inserted in the M.V. Act by Act 56 of 1969 and came into effect from 2-3-1970. Admittedly therefore, the accident took place after the insertion of this Section. S.110-AA of the M.V. Act provides that the claimant who may claim a compensation both under the W.C. Act and the M.V. Act shall have option to pursue his claim under either of the Acts, but not under both. It was submitted on behalf of respondent No. 1 that this Section will apply only in such cases where a compensation is claimed against the employer by the heirs of the workman or by the workman both under the M.V. Act and under the W.C. Act According to respondent No. 1 if claim is made against persons other than the employer under the M.V. Act that Section shall not apply. It is difficult to accept this contention. The language of S.110-AA of the M.V. Act is very clear. The Parliament in its wisdom intended that it was not desirable to allow a workman or his dependents or heirs to claim compensation under both the Acts. A person who is entitled to compensation under both the Acts has been given option to choose the forum. It is relevant to notice that before the forum was constituted under the M.V. Act by Act 108 of 1956 a claimant was entitled to file a suit for damages arising out of an accident in a civil court under the general law. When that was the position by virtue of S.3(5) of the W.C. Act the claimant was required to either pursue his remedies under the W.C. Act or by filing a suit under the general law in a civil court. Then also the claimant was not entitled to seek relief for the same cause of action at two places. When the forum under the M.V. Act was constituted, S.3(5) of the