Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Jobida Bano & Ors – Appellant
Versus
Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
CM(M) 297 of 2023 & CM APPL. 9081 of 2023
Decided On : 24-02-2023
Employees Compensation Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 21
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order dismissing their claim for lack of jurisdiction under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Joint Commissioner had misinterpreted Section 21 of the Act regarding territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside and quashed the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the Competent Authority to decide the claim in accordance with the law expeditiously. The Joint Commissioner was directed to dispose of the claim within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Issues: Misinterpretation of Section 21 of the Employees Compensation Act regarding territorial jurisdiction and delay in approaching the court after the COVID period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Joint Commissioner had misdirected himself by interpreting Section 21 of the Act incorrectly and had committed procedural irregularity. The court also considered the delay in approaching the court after the COVID period.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 07.04.2021 passed in case bearing No. CEC/SD/D/34/2019/3972-75 titled 'Jobida Bano & Ors. vs. Sh. Arvindbhai Shambhubhai Viradiya' by Joint Commissioner Employees Compensation (District South), Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi-110062 under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "the Act") whereby claim of the petitioners was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
2. A perusal of Section 21 of the Act makes it clear that by virtue of sub-Section (b) thereof, an employee or in case of his death, the defendant claiming compensation ordinarily resides has been inserted for the purpose of deciding the territorial jurisdiction where a complaint for compensation under the Act would lie.
3. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order that the Joint Commissioner (Labour) had not considered Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act and had passed an order which is clearly contrary to the provisions of law as mentioned above. It is apposite to extract the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, which is as under:
"21. Venue of proceeding 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--
(a) the accident took place which resulted in the injury; or
(b) the *[employee] or in case of his death, the dependant 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 15 prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned:
Provided further that, where the *[employee], being the master of a ship or a seaman or the captain or a member of the crew of an aircraft or a *[employee] 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.
(1A) If a Commissioner, other than the Commissioner with whom any money has been deposited under section 8, proceeds with a matter under this Act, the former may for the proper disposal of the matter call for transfer of any records or moneys remaining with the latter and on receipt of such a request, he shall comply with the same.
(2) If a Commissioner is satisfied that any matter arising out of any proceedings pending before him can be more conveniently dealt with by any other Commissioner, whether in the same State or not, he may, subject to rules made under this Act, order such matter to be transferred to such other Commissioner either for report or for disposal, and, if he does so, shall forthwith transmit to such other Commissioner all documents relevant for the decision of such matter and, where the matter is transferred for disposal, shall also transmit in the prescribed manner any money remaining in his hands or invested by him for the benefit of any party to the proceedings:
Provided that the Commissioner shall not, where any party to the proceedings has appeared before him, make any order of transfer relating to the distribution among dependants of a lump sum without giving such party an opportunity of being heard:
(3) The Commissioner to whom any matter is so transferred shall, subject to rules made under this Act, inquire there into and, if the matter was transferred for report, return his report thereon or, if the matter was transferred for disposal, con
The main legal point established is that the proviso to Section 21(1)(b) of the Employees’ Compensation Act imposes a mandatory notice requirement for a non-jurisdictional Compensation Commissioner t....
The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, the provision for interest under Section 4A, and the liability of the employer under Section 3(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act.
The central legal point established is the interpretation and application of jurisdiction under Section 21(1)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act.
The proper jurisdiction and compassion in compensation claims are essential for justice.
Territorial jurisdiction and employer-employee relationship are crucial factors in determining the applicability of the Employees' Compensation Act.
The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act to substantial questions of law only, and the findings of fact made by the Commissioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of territorial jurisdiction and the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in ca....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
