JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Y.S. Mannan for the Appellant and Mr. M.H. Rajborbhuyan, learned Counsel for the claimants/Respondents. 2. Md. Razek Ahmed was an employee of M/s Hanuman Plantation Ltd. who died on 14.7.2000. The two claimant Petitioners (father and mother of the deceased) filed an application under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Zone-III, Tezpur claiming compensation and by an impugned Order the learned Commissioner, Tezpur directed the present Appellants to pay compensation of Rs. 2,70,522/- and hence the present appeal. 3. The impugned judgment and order has been challenged by the Appellant on the ground; 1) that the Commissioner, Tezpur for Workmen's Compensation, had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and pass the impugned Order; 2) that the death of the deceased did not occur during the course of employment. 4. We find that the question of jurisdiction was raised before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation himself and the learned Commissioner in view of the amended provisions of Section21 of the Act held that the claimants are entitled to choose the Forum and file the compensation application at any place of his choice. 5. 4. We find that the question of jurisdiction was raised before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation himself and the learned Commissioner in view of the amended provisions of Section21 of the Act held that the claimants are entitled to choose the Forum and file the compensation application at any place of his choice. 5. Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows: Section 21: Venue of proceedings and transfer-(1) where any matter under this Act is to be done by or before a Commissioner, the same shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and to any rules made, hereunder, be done by or before the Commissioner for the area in which: (a) the accident took place which resulted in the injury; or (b) the workman or in case of his death, the dependant claiming the compensation ordinarily resides; or (c) the employer has his registered office; Provided that no matter shall be processed before or by a Commissioner, other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place, without his giving notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned: Provided further that, where the workman, being the master of a ship or a seaman or the captain or a member of the crew of an aircraft or a workman in a motor vehicle or a company, meets with the accident outside India any such matter may be done by or before a Commissioner for the area in which the owner or agent of the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle resides or carries on business or the registered office of the company is situate, as the case may be. (1-A) If a Commissioner, other than the Commissioner with whom any money has been deposited under Section 8, proceeds with a matter under this Act, the former may for the proper disposal of the matter call for transfer of any records or money remaining with the latter and on receipt of such a request, he shall comply with the same. (1-A) If a Commissioner, other than the Commissioner with whom any money has been deposited under Section 8, proceeds with a matter under this Act, the former may for the proper disposal of the matter call for transfer of any records or money remaining with the latter and on receipt of such a request, he shall comply with the same. (2) If a Commissioner is satisfied (that any matter arising out of any proceedings pending before him) can be more conveniently dealt with by any other Commissioner, whether in the same State or not, he may, subject to rules made under this Act, order such matter to be transferred to such other Commissioner either for report or for disposal, and, if he does so, shall forthwith transmit to such other Commissioner all documents relevant for the decision of such matter and, where the matter is transferred for disposal, shall also transmit in the prescribed manner any money remaining in his hands or invested by him for the benefit of any party to the proceedings: Provided that the Commissioner shall not, where any party to the proceeding has appeared before him, make any order of transfer relating to the distribution among dependents of a lump sum without giving such party an opportunity of being heard. (3) The Commissioner to whom any matter is so transferred shall, subject to rules made under this Act, inquire, there into and, if the matter was transferred for report, return his report thereon or, if the matter was transferred for disposal, continue the proceedings as if they had originally commenced before him. (4) On receipt of a report from a Commissioner to whom any matter has been transferred for report under Sub-section (2), the Commissioner by whom it was referred shall decide the matter referred in conformity with such report. (5) The State Government may transfer any matter from any Commissioner appointed by it to any other Commissioner appointed by it. 6. In the present case, there is no dispute at the Bar that the alleged accident took place under Samaguri P.S. in the District of Nagaon for which a case was registered as Samaguri P.S. Case No. 97/2000 under Section 302 IPC. The claimants have also agreed in their application that the accident took place in the district of Nagaon. 7. In the present case, there is no dispute at the Bar that the alleged accident took place under Samaguri P.S. in the District of Nagaon for which a case was registered as Samaguri P.S. Case No. 97/2000 under Section 302 IPC. The claimants have also agreed in their application that the accident took place in the district of Nagaon. 7. We have also perused the original application wherein the claimants had given the permanent address as M.D. Road, Dist. Nagaon. Hence, in view of the provisions of Sub-clause (A), (B) and (C), the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Nagaon has the jurisdiction to entertain this application for compensation. Further, even if we hold that the claimants, the dependants are ordinary residents of Tezpur, in that case also, in view of the proviso to Clause-I of Section 21 of the Act, the claim petition is required to be filed at Nagaon and that should have been processed there and then transferred. 8. We, therefore, hold that the learned Commissioner of Compensation at Tazpur had no jurisdiction to entertain this application. In view of the above, we are not considering the second contention, lest it may prejudice the claimants. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and claimants will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum at Nagaon. The amount deposited by the Appellants maybe refunded to them.