Mody, J. - (1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ under Articles 226 and or /227 of the Constitution, quashing the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nagpur, dated 20th January 1969, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 12 to the petition. The respondents to the petition are the Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur; the General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay; the Union of India; and the State of Maharashtra.
(2.) The petitioner, who is an employee of the Central Railway, along with his certain co-employees, was, in the early hours of the morning of 3rd May 1966, bringing a train from Itarsi to Nagpur. The petitioner was working as a Fireman in the engine of that train, and as directed by the Driver of the engine, he was feeding coal into the furnace. While doing so, a burning Spark from the furnace of the engine injured the right eye of the petitioner. The injury was serious, and as a result of it the petitioner permanently lost the sight of his right eye. On 11th July 1967 the petitioner filed an application for compensation under the provisions of section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, who is appointed as the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for Nagpur Region, making the first two respondents herein as respondents to that application. In the matter of that application, the first two respondents raised a preliminary objection about jurisdiction that the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, as such Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, contending that In view of the provisions of law, the petitioner having suffered injury while working on the railway train itself, only the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation at Bombay would have jurisdiction. The Judge sought the opinion of respondent No. 4, being the State of Maharashtra, on the point of jurisdiction. The State gave the opinion that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Bombay had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the petitioner's application. The learned Judge, acting on the opinion so received from the State, by the impugned order held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's said application.
(3.) In this petition, it is the petitioner's contention that the learned Judge, as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, has jurisdiction to entertain the application, and he seeks an order not only quashing the impugned order but also directing the learned Judge as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, to hear and dispose of the petitioner's application before him on the 4. Sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides: merits of that application.;