Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This appeal has been heard on informal papers by consent of the parties even at the stage of admission. The parties at variance contended before this Court with regard to first proviso to Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 as follows :

"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 workman 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 proceeded 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 and prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned :

............................................."

2. Sri Amit Manohar, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appellant contended before this Court that non-service of notice by the Commissioner upon the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place is fatal and as such the order which has been passed by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction. In support of his contention he wanted to rely upon a Single Bench decision to establish the persuasive value of the same reported in 2006 (108) FLR 351, M/s Chawla Techno Construction Ltd. and another v. State of UP. and others. Although the question of applicability of proviso under Section 21 of the Act arose in the proceeding but by and large the Court passed an order considering the question of maintainability of the writ petition following the Supreme Court judgment in 1988 (8) SCC 1, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks. We are of view that in Whirlpool Corporation case (supra) Supreme Court says that in four occasions writ lies irrespective of alternative remedy such as fundamental right, principle of natural justice, vires and jurisdiction, which has got nothing to do with regard to judicial order to be passed by the Court. Once a Commissioner passed a judicial order under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. an appeal against such order will be heard by the Appellate Court on the basis of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 itself.

3. Mr. Manish Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended before this Court on the basis of the recent Supreme Court judgment reported in 2008 (1) TAC 439 (SC), Morgina Begum v. Managing Director, Hanuma Plantation Ltd., that Section 21 (1) (b) clearly provides that the claim petition can be filed where the claimant ordinarily resides. He further contended before this Court that it is an enabling section to avoid the hardship of the claimants who normally belong to poorer section of the people shifting their place very often.

4. However, at the time of the drawing inference the Supreme Court held as follows :

“...In the present case, we are satisfied that the statement of the deceased’s father and mother is trustworthy that they are ordinarily residing at Tezpur, and hence the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Tezpur has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The Commissioner, Tezpur has also given notice to the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Nagaon as well as the State Government in compliance with the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act.”

5. According to us, enabling provision does not disassociate itself from the mandatory part of the Act to avoid possibility of double benefit. Under normal circumstances place of accident got basic jurisdiction to attract because immediately after accident lodging F.I.R. in the local police station and medical treatment etc. from the local hospital are associ