Liberal construction of labour statutes in favor of workmen and the interpretation of territorial jurisdiction in accident claims under relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 6850/2019 (Delay)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellants seeking condonation of delay of 294 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after the death of deceased, the appellants being widow and minor children, had no source of income and had been facing financial hardship which caused the delay in their approaching the advocate for filing the present appeal.

3. It is worthwhile to note that in Mohsina & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported as MANU/DE/2465/2017 a delay of 804 days in filing of the appeal was condoned by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, taking into account poor economic status of the appellants/claimants. Relevant excerpt from the decision is reproduced hereunder:

"4. The appellants are seeking condonation of delay of 804 days in filing the appeal on the ground that appellant no. 1 is an illiterate and poor lady; she lost her husband in the train accident; her father-in-law was pursuing the case before the Claims Tribunal; her father-in-law expired, whereupon her mother-in-law threw her out from the matrimonial home and she is residing with her father who is also handicapped; she was working as a maid servant to make both ends meet; her cousin came from abroad on 02nd May, 2013 and felt pity over her and made enquiries from the Claims Tribunal and thereafter, helped her in filing the appeal.

5. Considering the extreme poverty and illiteracy of the appellants, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the condition that the appellants would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 804 days."

4. In view of the aforementioned submissions, the application is allowed and the delay of 294 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

5. The application is disposed of.

FAO 56/2019

6. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the appellants have assailed the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation in Case No. WCD/2/NW/2016/852, titled as Smt. Shyama Devi & Ors. v. Ujjal Saha & Anr., whereby the appellants' claim petition was dismissed.

7. Mr. Chandan Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim application was filed under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') by the legal heirs of deceased i.e., late Mr. Srawan Kumar Yadav @ Srawan Yadav. It is contended that instead of considering the claim petition on merits, the same was dismissed on technical ground of jurisdiction.

8. Ms. Archana Gaur, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order.

9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

10. The brief facts, as noted by the Trial Court in the impugned order are that the claimant had sought death compensation by claiming that the death of her husband occurred out and in the course of employment.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that while the deceased was a permanent resident of District Darbangha, Bihar, the incident took place in West Bengal.

12. Before proceeding further, I deem it apposite to refer to Section 21 of the Act, which reads as under:

"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 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