Pathan Vali Khan and Another vs G. Venkata Gandhi and Others

Samudrala Govinda Rajulu, J.—This Court u/s 24 of C.P.C. may not entertain transfer petition for transfer of workmen compensation case from one Commissioner to another Commissioner. There is a provision in the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ''the Act'') itself for such transfer Section 21(2) of the Act reads as follows: (2) If a Commissioner is satisfied 1 [that any matter arising out of any proceedings pending before him] can be more conveniently dealt with by any other Commissioner, whether in the same State or not, be may, subject to rules made under this Act, order such matter to be transferred to such other Commissioner either for report or for disposal, and, if he does so, shall forthwith transmit to such other Commissioner all documents relevant for the decision of such matter and, where the matter is transferred for disposal, shall also transmit in the prescribed manner any money remaining in his hands or invested by him for the benefit of any party to the proceedings:

2[Provided that the Commissioner shall not, where any party to the proceedings has appeared before him, make any order of transfer relating to the distribution among dependants of a lump sum without giving such party an opportunity of being heard:]

Subs. by Act 9 of 1938

Ins. by Ibid

Therefore, the competent authority to transfer workmen compensation case from one Commissioner to another Commissioner is that Commissioner, where the case has been pending. Argument of the petitioners'' Counsel is that the Commissioner at Nalgonda has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It involves a jurisdictional fact. Decision on a jurisdictional fact has to be given by the Court/authority where the matter is pending and it cannot be given in a petition u/s 24 C.P.C. by this Court. It is contended that the petitioners are not parties to the claim pending before die Commissioner, Nalgonda. It is open to the petitioners to take steps before the Commissioner at Nalgonda and move before the Commissioner for necessary orders u/s 21(2) of the Act. In mat view of the matter, this petition is not maintainable before this Court.

In the result, the transfer petition is dismissed.