Must a party raising a territorial-jurisdiction objection at the appellate stage additionally show failure of justice, unlike at the original stage?

Paragraph 10While considering an objection raised to the territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal, the factors material at the original stage of the proceedings and those material at subsequent stages of the proceedings are also relevant. Under Section 169 of the Act of 1988, the Tribunal is required to follow a summary procedure as it thinks fit while deciding proceedings before it. The Tribunal has been granted powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and other ancillary matters. The general principles flowing from the Code have to be kept in mind while adjudicating an objection to territorial jurisdiction. In original proceedings of a claim application before the Tribunal, Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 provides for various options to a claimant to make an application for compensation under Section 166(1). The requirements prescribed in the matter of territorial jurisdiction would, therefore, have to be satisfied. However, when an objection to territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal is pursued at an appellate stage or at any later stage after the award is passed, the requirements prescribed under Section 21(1) of the Code have to be satisfied. Besides showing that an objection to the competence of the Tribunal based on territorial jurisdiction was raised before it, the adjudication undertaken by the Tribunal despite absence of territorial jurisdiction has resulted in failure of justice is also required to be shown. In other words, unless a party raising an objection to the territorial jurisdiction at an appellate stage shows that for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal which considered the original proceedings, there has been a failure of justice, such objection cannot be entertained at that stage. The stage at which an objection based on lack of territorial jurisdiction is being considered is, therefore, relevant. If the same is raised before the Tribunal at an initial stage of the proceedings, as in the present case, the provisions of Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 would guide the Tribunal in the matter. If such objection is considered post award at an appellate stage, the threshold required would be to demonstrate failure of justice by virtue of the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction despite absence of territorial authority to do so.

Paragraph 14In all the above cases, the objection based on territorial jurisdiction was considered at the appellate stage, thus, attracting the rigors of Section 21(1) of the Code that requires a party raising such objection to also demonstrate failure of justice being caused due to exercise of jurisdiction by a Tribunal having no territorial jurisdiction. In the present case, the claimant himself impleaded the insurer as a party to the claim application and it raised an objection to territorial jurisdiction before the Tribunal itself. As the claim application of the claimant awaits adjudication by the Tribunal on merits, the requirements of Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 have to be satisfied and Section 21(1) of the Code is not attracted. I. Consideration of the impugned order: