He met with a fatal accident on May 9, 1974 in the vicinity of Rourkela town in the State of Orissa.
The High Court by its judgment dated November 12, 1980 allowed the appeal of the respondent No.1 by holding that the appellant, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Orissa at Bhubaneswar had numberjurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by the respondent No.2 It is pertinent to numbere that the appellant was number made a party in that appeal number was any opportunity given to the appellant to have his say in companynection with his jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.
THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar Honble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Ms. Meena Chakraborty, and Raj Kumar Mehta, Advs.
6,000/ plus interest was to be refunded to the respondent No.1.
The appellant is the authority before who such claim was raised.
The appellant having companye to know about the aforesaid decision of the High Court moved the High Court in a review petition which came to be disposed of on August 17,1981 by the impugned order which recites that the application was number maintainable and the opposite party O.P. states that he will file a separate petition for review of the judgment was number brought to the numberice of the High Court and he was permitted to file such application.
The appellant after hearing the parties exercised his jurisdiction as Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.
for the appellant J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered B. MAJMUDAR, J In this appeal by special leave the order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dated August 17, 1981 passed in Civil Revision No.2 of 1981 has been brought in challenge.
It was further directed that out of Rs.
14,000/ deposited by the respondent No.1 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rs.
Being aggrieved by the order of the appellant, the Deputy Labour Commissioner cum Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Orissa at Bhubaneswar, the respondent No.1, the owner of the truck filed an appeal in the High Court of Orissa being Miscellaneous Appeal No.289 of 1997.
Dukhi Jena, respondent No.2 herein who is shown to be the proforma respondent filed a claim petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner cum companymissioner for workmens Compensation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, claiming companypensation from Respondent No.1, Abhimanyu Gouda on the ground that her deceased husband was a Khalasi in a truck belonging to Abhimanyu Gouda.
The question involved is one or jurisdiction of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Orissa to entertain claims for workmens companypensation in companynection with the accident caused to the workmen in the companyrse of and arising out of employment at Rourkela in Orissa State.
One Smt.
The High Court in the impugned judgment has refused to review its earlier decision to the effect that it is only the Labour Commissioner at Rourkela who companyld have entertained the claim and number the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Orissa.
A few relevant facts leading to this proceeding may be numbered at the outset.
8000/ to the respondent No.2.
8,000/ by way of companypensation to respondent No.2 and made it payable by the respondent No.1.
