JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.-Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the award dated 30.06.2014 passed by Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Ramban (hereinafter referred to as “ALC, Ramban”).

2. It appears that respondent No.3, claiming himself to be a Workman employed by petitioner as a Mate, made an application before ALC, Ramban, alleging therein that on 26.04.2001, he received personal injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment of the petitioner while loading vehicle No.JK01-9002. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs.3.00/- lacs was claimed by the respondent No.3. It appears that despite service, petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before the ALC, Ramban and an exparte award dated 30.06.2014 came to be passed, whereby respondent No.3 has been held entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,95,219/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of accident to 10.06.2014 and a penalty amount of Rs.30,000/-, making it total amount of Rs.5,29,760/-.

3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid award on various grounds but the main ground which has been raised by petitioner is that ALC, Ramban, did not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application of respondent No.3 because the alleged accident had taken place at Athwajan, Srinagar, and without there being any compliance to the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act of 1923) and the Rules made there-under i.e. Employee’s Compensation (Venue of Proceedings) Rules, 1996 (for brevity “the Rules of 1996”), ALC, Ramban, within whose jurisdiction respondent No.3 is residing, would not get the jurisdiction. It is on this ground that the petitioner has contended that there being a jurisdictional error on the part of ALC, Ramban, as such, the instant writ petition is maintainable.

4. Learned counsels for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition contending that the impugned award is appealable in terms of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 and, as such, writ petition against the same is not maintainable. It is contended that the petitioner has deliberately filed the instant writ petition in order to avoid the deposition of award amount before the Commissioner which is a pre-condition for maintainability of an appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the record of ALC, Ramban.

6. As already noted, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that ALC, Ramban did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application of respondent No.3 as the accident had not taken place with his jurisdiction and without compliance of provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act of 1923, the said Authority would not get jurisdiction.

7. In order to test the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner, it would be apt to refer to Section 21 of the Act of 1923. It reads 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 me