Ranjit Kaur vs Santokb Singh and Another

G.G. Sohani, J.—This order will also govern the disposal of C. Rr. Nos. 293 and 294, both of 1973.

The material facts given rise to these revision petition briefly are as follows: On an application submitted by the applicant for award of compensation under the provisions of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'', before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation in another State, the learned Commissioner transferred the case, at the instance of the applicant, to the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore. It is not disputed that before the order of transfer was passed, the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation had not given any notice to the opponents. It is also not disputed that the proceedings were not transferred with the sanction of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, as contemplated by the second proviso to Section 21(2) of the Act. When the matter came to be considered by the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore, an objection was raised on behalf of the non-applicants that the order of transfer was not in accordance with law and that the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding. This objection was upheld by the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore, by this impugned order. Aggrieved by this order, these revision petitions are preferred.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that these revision petitions deserves to be dismissed. The only question for consideration before me is whether the transfer of the proceedings, commenced by an application presented by the applicant for award of compensation, before the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation in another State to the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore, was in accordance with law. It is not disputed that the only relevant provisions of the Act in this behalf are Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 21 of the Act, which read as follows:�

21 (1) Where any matter is under this Act 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 a Commissioner for the area in which the accident took place which resulted in the injury:

Provided that, where the workman is the master of a ship or a seaman, any such matter may be done by or before a Commissioner for the area in which the owner or agent of the ship resides or carries on business.

(2) If a Commissioner is satisfied 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, he 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 ;

Provided that the Commissioner shall not, where any party to the proceeding, 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 ;

Provided further that no matter other than a matter relating to the actual payment to a workman or the distribution among dependants of a lump sum shall be transferred for disposal under this Sub-section to a Commissioner in the same State save with the previous sanction of the State Government or to a Commissioner in another State save with the previous sanction of the State Government of that State, unless all the parties to the proceedings agree to the transfer.

It is not disputed that the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore, has no jurisdiction u/s 21(1) of the Act to entertain the proceeding because the accident in question giving rise to these proceedings has taken place outside the State of Madhja Pradesh, that is, in an area, outside the area over which the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore, has no jurisdiction. The learned Commissioner, Indore, would, however, be competent to entertain the proceeding if it is transferred in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act. From a perusal of the second proviso to that provision, it is clear that except matters relating to actual payment to a workman or the distribution among the dependants of a lump sum, all other matters could be transferred for disposal to a Commissioner in another State with the previous sanction of the Government of the State where they arc being transferred, or only when all the parties to the proceedings agree to transfer. In the instant case, it is not disputed that all the parties to the proceedings had not agreed to the transfer. In point of fact, no notice of the proceedings was admittedly sent to the non-applicants prior to the order of transfer. It is also admitted that there is no sanction of the Government of Madhya Pradesh for transferring the proceedings. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration is whether the present proceeding can be said to be a matter relating to actual payment to a workman or distribution among dependants of a lump sum, because, as earlier observed, in these two types of proceedings the Act does not prescribe compliance with any condition before passing an order of transfer.

Now, Sub-sections (5) to (9) of Section 8 of the Act are the only provisions of the Act which deal with matters relating to actual payment to a workman or distribution among the dependants of a lump sum. The present proceeding is admittedly not a proceeding under Sub-sections (5) to (9) of Section 8 of the Act. It is commenced on an application made by the applicant for awarding compensation under the provisions of the Act. Such a proceeding cannot be considered to be a proceeding "relating to actual payment to workman or the distribution among dependants of a lump sum." The learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore, was therefore, right in holding that as the proceedings were not transferred in accordance with law, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding. The learned Commissioner, however, has erred in holding that even if the previous sanction of the Government of Madhya Pradesh is obtained, the proceedings cannot be transferred. In the instant case, the proceedings could be validly transferred with the previous sanction of the Government of Madhya Pradesh or with the concurrence of all the parties concerned. To this extent, therefore, the observations in the impugned orders are quashed.

Consequently, the revision petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. I would like to place on record the able assistance rendered to me by Mr. Beri and Mr. Behl, learned Counsel for the parties, and Mr. Pavecha, Advocate, who acted as amicus curiae. In the circumstance of the case, parties shall bear their own cost of this petition.