RAMAT MASSEY Vs. ARVIND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an agreement dated 30.4.1984 between Silvester Massey and M/s. Arvind Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. the appellant's son was appointed as a Mechanic- helper for working in Iraq on the construction contract being performed by the respondents in Iraq. The respondent company booked the air passage of the appellant's son to Iraq and the appellant's son joined the company's service in Iraq on 17.5.1984. He died on 21.8.1984 in Iraq. A claim petition is filed by his father under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner under Workmen s Compensation Act, Delhi. At the time of admission this court directed the appellant to produce a copy of the provisions similar to Workmen's Compensation Act, prevalent in Iraq. They are filed by the appellant and are taken on record.

(2.) Through the impugned order the Commissioner had disposed of a preliminary issue raised by the respondents, namely:

(3.) Reliance of Commissioner on section 21 is erroneous. Section 21 only speaks of the territorial jurisdiction for the purposes of territorial division under Workmen's Compensation Act. This is further clear from the fact that a Commissioner can transfer the matter to another Commissioner under section 21 (2) of the Act on certain contingencies. This section does not indicate as to whether the Commissioner under the Workmen s Compensation Act can at all entertain a petition when the alleged incident had taken place outside India under clause 10 of the agreement between the parties. However, the clause throws some light on the liability aspect of the matter for the purpose of claim of compensation. It says that if there are provisions for compensation similar to Indian Workmen's Compensation Act in Iraq, then those provisions would be made applicable. But there is no such provision in Indian Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to be made applicable.