MORGINA BEGUM versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 26-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MORGINA BEGUM 
v. 
MANAGING DIRECTOR, HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 
B 
(A.K. MATHU~ AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
---< 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: 
-<: 
c 
s. 21 (l)(b)-Jurisdiction-Accident in Nagaon resulting in death 
of deceased-Parents of deceased started residing with son-in-law at 
Tezpur for their livelihood-Claim petition filed by parents before the 
Commissioner, Tezpur-Maintainability of-Held: Maintainable-
Interpretation of statutes-Beneficial legislation. 
D 
Deceased was an employee of the respondent Company. He died 
in accident which took place in Nagaon. His parents filed petition for 
....( 
I 
claiming compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act before the 
Commissioner, Tezpur. In the said petition, Commissioner, Tezpur 
E awarded compensation of Rs.2. 70 lacs. The respondent company 
challenged the award before the High Court raising two arguments, that 
the Commissioner, Tezpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the ~laim 
petition and the death of the deceased did not occur during course of 
employment 
-'1 
F 
The High Coqrt held that the Commissioner, Tezpur had no 
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and accordingly set aside the 
order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Tezpur, without 
going into the second argument 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-claimant contended thattheclaim 
petition was flied at Tezpur because both the claimants, i.e., the father 
y-. 
and mother of the deceased started residing at Tezpurwith their son-
in-law after the death of their son. 
H 
372 
J 
)· 
~ 
MORGINA BEGUM v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, 
HANUMAN PLANTATION LTD. 
373 
Allowing the appeal on issue of jurisdiction and remitting the matter A 
to High Court to consider case ofrespondent on merits, the Court 
HELD: 1. S.21(1)(b) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 
provides that the claim petition may be filed by the claimant where the 
claimant ordinarily resides. The expression 'ordinarily resides' means B 
where the person claiming compensation normally resides at the time 
of fding the claim petition. The proviso to S.21(1) provides that in case 
Commissioner, other than the Commissioner havingjurisdiction over 
the area in which the accident took place, entertains the claim petition 
then he is required to give a notice to the Commissioner having C 
jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned. 
(Para 6) (377-A, B, CJ 
1.2. The idea is that migrant labourers all over the country often 
go elsewhere' to cam their livelihood. When an accident takes place then 
in order to facilitate the claimants they may make their claim not D 
necessarily at the place where the accident took place but also at the 
place where they ordinarily reside. It is not possible for poor workmen 
or their dependents who reside in one part of the country and shift from 
one place to another for their livelihood to necessarily go to the place 
of the accident for filing a claim petition. It may be very expensive for E 
the claimants to pursue such a claim petition because of the financial 
and other hardship. Labour statutes are for the welfare of the workmen. 
Therefore, the view taken by the High Court that the claim petition could 
only be filed at the place where the accident had taken place, cannot be 
sustained. S.21(1)(b) read with its proviso is a beneficial legislation for F 
the welfare of the workmen and by the above interpretation, it will 
advance the cause of the workmen. [Para 7) [377-G; 378-A, E, F] 
Bharat Singhv. Management of New Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi 
and Ors., [1986) 2 SCC 614, relied on. 
G 
S.K Saukat Ali Alias Sekho S.K v. Commissioner for Workmen's 
Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack and Ors., 
(1999) 2 Transport and Accident Cases 638 (Ori) and Noorjahan v. 
National Insurance Co. Ltd Hyderbad andAnr., (1999) 3 T.A.C. 276 (AP), H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A approved. 
2.1. Both the claimants, i.e., the father and mother of the deceased 
have been examined and they appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and 
PW-2. PW-1, the father of the deceased has clearly stated in his 
examination-in-chief thatthey are residing with their son-in-law atTezpur 
B for their livelihood. Similarly, the mother of the deceased has stated on 
the same lines that they are residing at Tezpurwith their son-in-law. A 
suggestion given to her that they were residing at Nagaon has been 
emphatically denied by her. The statement of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.