JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Alok Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Samant, learned Brief Holder for the State. None is present for respondent no.2 inspite of service. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.10.2004 passed by respondent no.1 Workmen Compensation Commissioner (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in W.C.A. No.18 of 2002. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner M/s Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. is a private limited company having its registered office at 123/360, Fazal Ganj, Kanpur. The said company is engaged in manufacturing of steel bars and other items and its unit is situate at 22, 23 Industrial Area, U.P.S.I.D.C., Sumairpur, Hamirpur, U.P. Respondent no.2 was an employee of the petitioner company and was serving in the Hamirpur Unit. During the course of employment, he met with an accident on 1.4.1996. A petition for claiming compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was filed by the respondent no.2 before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Udham Singh Nagar, which was subsequently transferred to Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Haldwani. By order dated 9.4.2002, the claim petition was allowed ex-parte awarding compensation of Rs.1,13,736/- along with interest of Rs.81,888/-. Against the ex-parte order, the petitioner company moved an application and also filed its objections against the claim petition. By the impugned order dated 3010.2004, objections filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Wokmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Haldwani had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition as the factory is situated at Hamirpur, U.P. 5. In order to resolve the controversy involved in the present case whether the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Haldwani had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition or not, it will be necessary to refer to the necessary provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter for short ‘The Act’). Section 21(1) of the Act which is relevant for the purpose is reproduced hereunder:- “21. Section 21(1) of the Act which is relevant for the purpose is reproduced hereunder:- “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 [employee] 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 [employee], being the master of a ship or a seaman or the captain or a member of the crew of an aircraft or [an employee] 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.” 6. This fact is not disputed that the accident in the present case took place in the petitioner company at Hamirpur and hence the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation at Hamirpur also had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. However, in the present case the claim petition was filed at Udham Singh Nagar because the claimant was residing in District Udham Singh Nagar. 7. Section 21(1)(b) of the Act clearly provides that the claim petition may be filed by the claimant where the claimant ordinarily resides. In the present case, the claimant was residing at district Udham Singh Nagar. Hence, I am of the view that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Haldwani had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 8. In the light of aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Impugned order dated 30.10.2004 passed by respondent no.1 Workmen Compensation Commissioner (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in W.C.A. No.18 of 2002, is upheld. 9. Hence, I am of the view that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Haldwani had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 8. In the light of aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Impugned order dated 30.10.2004 passed by respondent no.1 Workmen Compensation Commissioner (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in W.C.A. No.18 of 2002, is upheld. 9. So far as other grounds are concerned like whether the employee is covered under the definition of Workmen, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Haldwani, who before proceeding further shall issue fresh notices to the respondent/claimant and thereafter decide the case finally after considering all the objections raised by the petitioner.