DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER ORISSA BHUBANESWAR Vs. ABHIMANYU GOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave the order of the High court of orissa at Cuttack dated 17/8/1981 passed in Civil Revision No. 2 of 1981 has been brought in challenge.

(2.) The question involved is one of jurisdiction of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, orissa to entertain claims for workmen's compensation in connection with the accident caused to workmen in the course of and arising out of employment at Rourkela in orissa State. The High court in the impugned judgment has refused to review its earlier decision to the effect that it is only the Labour Commissioner at Rourkela who could have entertained the claim and not the Deputy Labour Commissioner, orissa.

(3.) A few relevant facts leading to this proceeding may be rioted at the outset. One Smt Dukhi Jena, Respondent 2 herein who is shown to be the pro forma respondent filed a claim petition before the Deputy Labourcommissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, orissa, Bhubaneswar, claiming compensation from Respondent I, Abhimanyu Gouda on the ground that her deceased husband was a Khalasi in a truck belonging to Abhimanyu Gouda. He met with a fatal accident on 9/5/1974 in the vicinity of Rourkela town in the State of orissa. The appellant is the authority before whom such claim was raised. The appellant after hearing the parties exercised his jurisdiction as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and awarded an amount of Rs. 8,000. 00 by way of compensation to Respondent 2 and made it payable by respondent 1. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellant, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, orissa at Bhubaneswar, Respondent I, the owner of the truck filed an appeal in the High court of orissa being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 289 of 1977. The High court by its judgment dated 12/11/1980 allowed the appeal of respondent 1 by holding that the appellant, Deputy Labour Commissioner, orissa at Bhubaneswar had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by Respondent 2. It is pertinent to note that the appellant was not made a party in that appeal nor was any opportunity given to the appellant to have his say in connection with his jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The High court held that since the accident had taken place outside the jurisdiction of the appellant, only the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Rourkela could entertain the claim petition and not the appellant.