NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ABDUL KALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. M. H. Rajborbhuya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant.

(2.) THIS appeal against the judgment and award dated 25. 6. 2002 passed in W. C. Case No. 31 of 2000 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Zone-Ill, Tezpur under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law-

(3.) MR . A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant asserts that the claim case should have been filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nagaon. To the contra, Mr. M. H. Rajborbhuya, learned counsel appearing for the claimant asserts that since the claimant is temporarily residing at Tezpur, he could file the claim case before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur inasmuch as under sub-section (1) (b) of Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the workmen/claimant can file the claim case before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation having the jurisdiction over the area where the respondent/claimant is temporarily or originally residing. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in case the respondent/claimant filed the claim case in pursuance of sub-section (1) (b) of Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur for the area where the claimant originally resides, it is the requirement of the 1st proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to give notice to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for the area in which the accident took place as well as the State Government concerned by the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur. In the present case, Mr. Ahmed asserts that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Zone No. 3, Tezpur, did not give any notice to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nagaon and also to the State concerned. Therefore, according to Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Commissioner, Tezpur did not comply with the requirements of 1st proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before proceeding the Claim Case No. 31 of 2000. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is quoted hereunder :-