Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THESE misc. appeals arise out of the order dated 2.4.2013 passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Commissioner') rejecting the appellants' claimants' (hereinafter 'the claimants') applications for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1923') on the ground that he had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the applications. The Commissioner noted the fact that a perusal of the First information Report (hereinafter 'the FIR') and the Post Mortem Report (hereinafter 'the PMR') filed with the claim application indicated that the accident in respect of which compensation was claimed occurred in Rohtak in the State of Haryana and the employer of the deceased workman was a resident of Sangoor in the State of Punjab. And from the claim petition and the documents in support thereof it was not prima facie made out that the claimants were "ordinarily residing" at Jaipur. In this view of the matter the claim petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
(2.) MR . Ram Singh Rathore, counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the issue as to whether the claimants were "ordinarily resident" of Jaipur was an issue which was amenable to leading of evidence and the Commissioner could not have perfunctorily returned the claim applications in the first instance as has been done. He has drawn the attention of of this Court to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Morgina Begum v. Managing Director, Hanuma Plantation Ltd., : IV (2007) ACC 726 (SC) in support of his contentions. Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter 'the Insurance Company') submits that the order dated 2.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner is a well considered and reasoned order and brooks no interference. He submits that admittedly the accident in respect of which compensation was claimed took place in Rohtak (Haryana) as evident from the FIR and PMR. It was also an admitted fact that the Employer of the deceased resided at Sangoor (Punjab). Counsel submits that it was/is extremely unlikely that one ordinarily residing at Jaipur would be engaged by a truck owner residing in Sangoor (Punjab) as if there were no drivers and Khalasies available there. He submits that in any event it was for the claimants to file other documents - as they filed the FIR and PMR - in support of the their claim that they were "ordinarily residing" in Jaipur. This not having been done, the claim petitions could not be maintainable at Jaipur only on the mere bald assertion of the claimants that they were "ordinarily residents" of Jaipur.
(3.) HEARD . Considered.;