Commissioner Workmens Compensation competent to decide the proceedings.

E. PADMANABHAN, J.

( 1 ) THE present revision has been preferred uncler Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for transfer of W. C. No. 22 of 1998 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, madurai, the respondent No. 2 herein to the file of the Deputy Commissioner of labour, Tirunelveli.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the approach of the respondent No. 2 is unfair, unlawful, unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 22 of the Workmens Compensation Act since the accident in question took place at Tirunelveli, outside the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 and respondent no. 1 is ordinarily residing at Thuraiyur, tirunelveli. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli alone has the jurisdiction to try the dispute.

( 3 ) IT is contended that the respondent no. 1 had admitted that she was a resident of Thuraiyur in Tirunelveli District during cross-examination and not residing at madurai and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 2 has personal bias against the revision petitioner as the petitioner had declined to compromise the matter, as suggested by the respondent no. 2. The respondent No. 2 has acted in excess of the jurisdiction and always went on passing orders without following the fair procedure and without deciding the jurisdictional issue. It is further contended that the entire claim against the petitioner is false and fictitious. Certain expressions made by the respondent No. 2 during the hearing is also stated and relied upon as a ground for transfer as it reflects bias on the part of respondent No. 2 and he will not act fairly, as an independent quasi-judicial authority.

( 4 ) PER contra, Mr. M. Chinnasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader contends that the respondent no. 1 is residing within the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 could maintain the claim. Though the incident occurred in Tirunelveli District, there is no bar for the respondent No. 2 entertaining the claim. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was always trying to avoid the claim as seen from the fact that the petitioner had moved this court on more than one occasion.

( 5 ) IT is to be pointed out here that when allegations of bias and mala fides had been alleged against the respondent No. 2 by impleading him personally, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent No. 2 to have come forward and file a counter. In the absence of a counter by the respondent no. 2, allegations of bias and allegations that the respondent No. 2 has been acting unfairly or unreasonably or arbitrarily has to be sustained. Certain portions of the order dated 31. 1. 2002 passed by respondent No. 2 also reflects on the respondent no. 2. It reads thus:"thereafter the respondent has filed an LA. petition dated 9. 9. 2000 praying to set aside the ex pane order dated 2. 8. 2000 alleging some false, mischievous contentions spoiling the image of this court. A notice from this court dated 28. 9. 2000 was issued why it should not be brought to the notice of the Bar council for further action. No reply was received from the counsel. However, a cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed to set aside the ex pane order. Aggrieved over this order, the respondent had filed a petition before the High Court, Chennai to stay all the proceedings of this court. The Honble High Court, Chennai in c. M. P. No. 7110 of 2001 in C. R. P. No. 1311 of 2001 dated 24. 7. 2001 has pass ed an order for payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs for setting aside the ex pane order. Further, the High Court, Chennai also directed to dispose of the main case within a period of three months. In the meanwhile, the respondent has filed a petition raising a preliminary objection da