Management of M/s Kailash Hospital and Research Centre v. Nisha

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘EC Act’), the appellant has assailed order/Award dated 11.08.2010 passed by learned Labour Commissioner, Pushp Vihar, Delhi in Case No.WCD/SD/75/06 titled as Smt. Nisha v. Management of Kailash Hospital and Research Center Ltd.

2. Ms. Mamta Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the impugned Award has been passed by the learned Commissioner despite having no jurisdiction in the case. In this regard, it is submitted that Pradeep Kumar (deceased) was employed with Kailash Hospital & Research Centre, which is located at Noida. At the time of his employment, the deceased had filled up his Employees’ Provident Fund Form, wherein both his permanent and temporary addresses were mentioned to be outside Delhi. It is next contended that though the incident took place on 27.06.2006, the deceased was on leave from 23.06.2006 to 25.06.2006, and on the day of the incident, he had come to the office only for seeking extension of his leave. It is lastly contended that respondent Nos.[2] and 3 (the parents of the deceased) had filed a separate claim petition before the Noida Authority, which came to be dismissed on 04.11.2008.

3. Per contra, Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, has defended the impugned order. He submits that while passing the impugned order the learned Commissioner had jurisdiction over the claim petition as respondent No.1 was resident of Delhi, which fact is also found mentioned in the memo of parties. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Morgina Begum v. Md, Hanuman Plantation Ltd. reported as (2007) 11 SCC 616. Respondent Nos.[2] and 3 stand served, however, none has appeared on their behalf.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the records.

5. With regard to the aspect of jurisdiction, it is noted that though it is claimed in the present appeal that the said contention was raised before the learned Commissioner, no such issue is found recorded in the impugned order. Be that as it may, a perusal of the claim petition would show that respondent No.1 had shown herself to be a resident of property bearing No.1A/3, Jia Sarai, Near IIT, New Delhi. The fact that the deceased, at an earlier point of time in the year 2014 while filling details in the Employees’ Provident Fund Form, had mentioned his permanent as well as temporary addresses to be outside Delhi, would not bar the claim petition filed subsequent to the happening of the incident. At this stage, it would be relevant to advert to Section 21(1)(b) of the EC Act, which reads as under:-

6. Moreover, the decision rendered in Morgina Begum (Supra) applies to facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the first contention of the appellant is found to be meritless and is rejected. Relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced hereinbelow:-