Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
JOBIDA BANO & ORS ..... Petitioner
GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR ..... Respondent
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. CM. Patel and Mr. Parvin Bansal, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Gupta for Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for R-1.
1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 07.04.2021 passed in case bearing No. CEC/SD/D/34/2019/3972-75 titled ‘Jobida Bano & Ors. vs. Sh. Arvindbhai Shambhubhai Viradiya’ by Joint Commissioner Employees Compensation (District South), Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi-110062 under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “the Act”) whereby claim of the petitioners was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
2. A perusal of Section 21 of the Act makes it clear that by virtue of sub-Section (b) thereof, an employee or in case of his death, the defendant claiming compensation ordinarily resides has been inserted for the purpose of deciding the territorial jurisdiction where a complaint for compensation under the Act would lie.
3. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order that the Joint Commissioner (Labour) had not considered Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act and had passed an order which is clearly contrary to the provisions of law as mentioned above. It is apposite to extract the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, which is as under:-
4. The Joint Commissioner has misdirected himself by interpreting Section 21 of the Act to mean that the territorial jurisdiction would be vested with the concerned Labour Commissioner where either the accident took place or the employer has its registered office.
5. It is apparent that the Joint Commissioner did not consider Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act and had proceeded on a basis which was not applicable to the present case. The illegality, material irregularity and judicial impropriety is writ large in the present case.
6. The Joint Commissioner ought to have considered Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act while dealing with the present case, keeping in view that the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is a beneficial legislation meant for such purposes.
7. The Joint Commissioner has overlooked the provisions of law which was staring in the eye and has committed a procedural irregularity and has proceeded in the manner alien to the interpretation of statutes.
8. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.1, i.e. Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr and accepts notice.
9. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel submits that it is clear that the petitioners have approached this Court after a delay of almost one year after the COVID period and submits that interest, if any, to be awarded by the Joint Commissioner, if at all any award is passed in favour of the petitioner in the interregnum, the period between 28.02.2022 through till 24.02.2023 be not claimable.
10. It is informed that respondents no.1 and 2 had appeared before the Joint Commissioner and filed their respective written statements and pleadings are complete.
11. In view of the aforesaid point on law, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 07.04.2021 and remitting the matter back to the Competent Authority to decide the said claim in accordance with law expeditiously.
12. Keeping in view that the employee had expired on 31.05.2018, the Joint Commissioner is directed to dispose of the claim within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
13. This Court is in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Gupta and directs that in case any award is passed, the interest for the period between 28.02.2022 through till 24.02.2023 shall not be accorded to the petitioners.
14. In view of the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J FEBRUARY 24, 2023