MORGINA BEGUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 372

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

MORGINA BEGUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD.pdf

Judgment text

MORGINA BEGUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD. SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 (A. K. MATHU~ AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ) --- sides. In our opinion, the expressesion 'ordinarly resides' means where the person · claiming compensation normally resides at the time offiling the claim petition. The proviso to Section 21(1) which is also relevant for the present controversy, provides that in case the Commissioner, other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in whcih the accident took place, entertains the claim petition then he shall give a notice to the Commissioner havingjurisdiction over the area and the state Government concerned. The Amended Section 21 has been specifically introduced in the Act by Amending Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15th September, 1995 in order to benefit and facili! ate the claimants.

The Statement ofObjects and Reasons for the Amendment ofthe Act, copy of which has been produced before us, clearly mentions that the amendment has been brought about for benefits ofthe claimants viz. either the workmen or their dependents. The relevant portion ofthe Stateme2t of Objects and Reasons, reads as under:- "It is also proposed to introduce provision for facilitating migrant workmen to file compensation claims before the Commissioners having jurisdiction over the area where they or their dependents ordinarily reside. Provision for transfer ofcompensatfon from one -f- Commissioner to another has also been made. " 7. The idea behind introduction ofthis amendment is that migrant labourers all over the country often go elsewhere to earn their livelihood. When an aecident takes place then in order to facilitate the claimants they may make their claim not necessarily at the place where the accident took· place but also at the place where they ordinarily reside.

This amendment was introduced in the Act in 1995. This was done with a very laudable object, otherwise it could cause hardship to the claimant to claim compensation under the Act. It is not possible for poor workmen or thei~ dependents who reside in one part ofthe country and shift from one place to another for their livelihood to necessarily go to the place ofthe accident for filing a claim petition. It may be very expensive for the claimants to ,_ pursue in such a claim petition because ofthe financial and other hardship. - It would entail the poor claimant traveling from one place to another for getting compensation. Labour statutes are for the welfare ofthe workmen. This Court has in the case of Bharat Singh v. Managem~nt ofNew Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi and Ors. , [1986] 2 SCC, 614 has taken the view that welfare legislation should be given a purposive interpretation safeguarding the rights ofthe have-nots rather than giving a ~ literal construction.

In case ofdoubt the interpretation in favour ofthe ~ worker should be preferred. The view which we are taking has been taken by Division Bench ofthe Orissa High Court in the case ofSK Saukat Ali Alias Sekho SK v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensationcum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack and Ors. , (1999) 2 Transport and Accident Cases 638 (Ori) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Noorjahan v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Hyderabad and Anr. , (1999) 3 T. A. C. 276 (AP). Hence, we are of the opinion that the view taken by both these High Courts is correct. A ·-1 I claimant can apply before the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area where the claimant resides, and it is not always necessary to prefer claim petition where the accident has taken palce. This is for the facility of the workmen and advances the cause of welfare of the worken.

Therefore, the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the impugned order that the claim petition could only be filed at the place where the accident had taken place, cannot be sustained. Section 21 (1 )(b) read with its ____. ,, proviso is a beneficial legislation for the welfare ofthe workmen and by the above, interpretation, it will advance the cause of the workmen. Therefore, we are ofthe opinion that the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly we set aside the impugned order. 8. Now, adverting to the facts of the present case, in the present case, both the claimants, i. e. , the father and mother ofthe deceased have 't:. been examined and they appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and PW- 2. PW-1, the father ofthe deceased Md. Rajik Ahmed, has clearly stated in his ex:unination in chiefthat they are residing with their son-in-law at Tezpur for their livelihood.

Similarly, the mother ofthe deceased has stated on the same lines that they are residing at Tezpur with their son-in-law. A suggestion given to her that they were residing at Nagaon has been emphatically denied by her. The statement ofthese two witnesses makes it clear that they are presently residing at Tezpur for their livelihood. The statement of both these witnesses was believed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compenstation, Tezpur. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that simply by saying that they are residing at Tezpur is not enough to prove their statement but they should produce documents to show that in fact they are residing at Tezpur. We see no reason to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent when there is a clear statement by both the claimants that they started residing at Tezpur after the death oftheir son.

Ifthe respondent wanted to prove that they were deposing falsely, he should have cross-examined these witnesses and challenged their testimony in the witnesses box on this point, which has not been done. In the present case, we are satisfied that the statement ofthe deceased's father and mother is trustworthy that they are ordinarily residing at Tezpur, and hence the Commissioner, Workmen's Compenstation, Tezpur has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The Commissioner, Tezpur has also given notice to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensatic n, Nagaon as well as the State Government in compliance with the proviso to Section 21(1) ofthe Act. 9. In these circumstances, we are ofthe view that the Commission~r, Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition ofthe appellants. Accordingly, we set aside the impugnedjudgment and order ofthe High Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has considered the appeal only on the ground of jurisdiction and not on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded this fact. Therefore, we remit the matter to the High Court to consider the case of the respondent herein on merits with regard to the second point urged before it and decide the same expeditiously. ,, 10. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. I' Appeal allowed. llFG