1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2475 Court No. - 36 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2103 of 2024 Appellant :- Smt Praveen Respondent :- Ms R Sai Logistic India Private Limited Company And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Sharan Srivastava Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Shri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. On 22.10.2024, following order was passed:- "1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur whereby he has dismissed the claim petition for want of jurisdiction. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 21 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. He submits that the learned Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide the claim and, even if, it is assumed that he had no jurisdiction, he should have instead of dismissing the claim petition directed return of claim petition for being presented before the appropriate Commissioner who had jurisdiction to decide the same. 3. Considering the peculiar facts of this case and in order to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of claim petition on merits, this Court intends to decide the appeal at this stage of fresh case itself. 2 4. Issue notice to the respondents. Steps be taken within three weeks by registered speed post. 5. Put up this case as fresh on 06.01.2025. " 3. Pursuant to the notice issued, Shri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Akhilesh Sharan Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is present. 4. As regards respondent No.1, office has submitted a report that neither undelivered cover nor acknowledgment is returned after service. The service of notice upon respondent No.1 is held sufficient. 5. In view of the limited controversy involved in the matter, summoning the record of the concerned Commissioner is not deemed appropriate. 6. The Court finds that before the Commissioner concerned also, when the notices were issued to both the opposite parties in the claim petition, the opposite party No.1, who is respondent No.1 in the present appeal, refused to accept the notice and, therefore, the Commissioner proceeded to decide the matter after hearing the claimants and Insurance Company and dismissed the claim petition on account of territorial jurisdiction, as noted in the previous order. 7. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Commissioner has rightly interpreted Section 21 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and rejected the claim petition on the ground of territorial limits of jurisdiction." 3 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while arriving at a conclusion that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the claim petition, following observation was made by him:- "प्रस्तुत वाद में दुर्घटना स्थल आन्ध्र प्रदेश है तथा सेवायोजक का पता कोहिहमा नागालैण्ड द्वारा हिवपुल ट्रेड सैण्टर गुडगांव(हरिरयाणा) है एवं वादी श्रीमती परवीन का पता भी जनपद बुलन्दशहर है तथा मृतक नईम के डी.एल व आधार काड में भी हिनवास का पता जनपद बुलन्दशहर अंहिकत है। वादी पक्ष द्वारा हाल पता सहारनपुर में दशाकर वाद योजिजत हिकया गया है। परन्तु वादी श्रीमती परवीन पत्नी स्व० कल्लन उर्फ कल्लू खां द्वारा सहारनपुर में हिनवास करने का कोई अभिभलेखीय साक्ष्य दाखिखल नहीं हिकया गया है। वाहिदया द्वारा अपनी साक्ष्य में जिजरह में यह भी स्वीकार हिकया गया है हिक आज साक्ष्य देने वह बुलन्दशहर से आयी हैं। अत्एव यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है हिक वाहिदया एवं उसके मृतक पुत्र नईम का पता जनपद सहारनपुर नहीं है बल्किDक बुलन्दशहर है।" 9. It is contended that the aforesaid observation is wholly uncalled for in view of Section 21 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 which reads as under :- "21. Venue of proceedings and transfer.- (1) Where any matter under this Act is 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 the Commissioner for the area in which- (a). the accident took place which resulted in the injury; or (b). the employee or in case of this death, the dependent claiming the compensation ordinarily reside; or (c). the employer has his registered office." 10. It is contended that claimant ordinarily resides in Saharanpur and merely because she stated that on the date of cross-examination that she had come from Bulandshahr, the same, in itself, cannot infer that the claimant does not reside in 4 Saharanpur. Even otherwise, though the Commissioner has referred to Section 21 of the Act of 1923, it has failed to appreciate the real meaning and import behind the provision and once the claimant states that she ordinarily resides in Saharanpur, the view taken is contrary to the record and merely because she had stated that she had come from Bulandshahr on a particular day, it was not sufficient to dismiss the claim petition. 11. In view of the above discussion, substantial question of law framed above is answered in favour of the appellant holding that the Commissioner has erred in fact and law in interpreting Section 21 of the Act against the claimant-appellant. 12. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner dated 07.09.2024 cannot sustain and is hereby set aside. 13. The appeal is allowed. 14. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner concerned who shall decide the claim petition on merits after hearing parties within next six months from the date proceedings are revived. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad