Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Bombay High Court on Employees’ Compensation: Territorial Jurisdiction.

Update / Judgement Date

14 Nov 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

2 min read

Civil LawOther Legal Matters
Bombay High Court on Employees’ Compensation: Territorial Jurisdiction.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Bombay High Court set aside the Commissioner’s order dismissing an Employees’ Compensation claim on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that filing the claim at the Commissioner’s office where the insurance company had a branch and where the employee had a registered address was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Dismissal solely on technical territorial grounds was contrary to the object of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The matter was remanded for fresh calculation and adjudication of compensation.


Background:
  1. The deceased, Rajaram Yadav, was employed as a driver by Respondent No.1 and met with a vehicular accident on 2 January 2011 at Vadodara, Gujarat, resulting in paraplegia.
  2. A claim application was filed on 4 September 2013 before the Commissioner, Thane.
  3. At the time of filing, the deceased had an address in Thane, but later shifted to Uttar Pradesh, where he died on 28 June 2018.
  4. The Commissioner dismissed the application citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The dependants (sons) filed the appeal.


Court’s Observations:
  1. Section 21 of the Employees’ Compensation Act considers “ordinary residence” and “registered office” for determining jurisdiction.
  2. Branch office of the insurer at Thane gives the Commissioner jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
  3. Filing at Thane was valid even though residence later shifted; technical objection to jurisdiction cannot defeat the claim.
  4. Insurance company liable to compensate as per policy; technical distinctions between EC Act and MV Act do not relieve insurer.
  5. The appeal raised a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of territorial jurisdiction under the EC Act.


Legal Provisions Discussed:
  1. Section 21, Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 – Territorial jurisdiction for filing claims.
  2. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Distinction between EC Act claims and MV Act claims noted.


Decision:
  1. Appeal partly allowed.
  2. Commissioner’s dismissal set aside.
  3. Matter remanded to Commissioner, Thane for fresh adjudication of compensation and liability determination.
  4. Directions: Parties to appear before Commissioner on 23 November 2025; Commissioner to decide within 3 months.

Citation: 2025:BHC:48954

Case: Jiyalal Rajaram Yadav & Ors. v. M/s Agrawal Roadlines (P) Ltd. & Ors.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Hon’ble S.M. Modak, J.

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025

First Appeal No.: FA 210 of 2023