Compensation Commissioner at Begusarai, Bihar, where the accident happened on 07.06.2005. He has also not issued notice to the State Government concerned, that is to say, the Government of Bihar, the twin conditions to be mandatorily fulfilled in terms of the proviso to Section 21(1)(b) of the Act of 1923 by a non-jurisdictional Compensation Commissioner trying or processing, as the Statute says, a claim by an employee or his heirs for compensation under the Act of 1923. Therefore, the substantial question, in the terms that it has been framed, has arisen. The general rule about venue or jurisdiction of a Court trying a civil cause or proceedings akin to it is that the Court competent to try the action or undertake the proceedings is the one within the territorial jurisdiction of which the cause of action has arisen. Different Statutes, including the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, extend the venue to other Courts, upon principles spelt out by the law. Here, the Statue, prior to its amendment by the Act of 1995, did not invest any other Compensation Commissioner, except for the one in whose area the accident took place and resulted in the injury. There was, of course, some modification of the rule if the workman was employed on a seagoing vessel or a seaman. Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as the Act was called prior to the alteration of its name by Act No. 45 of 2009, reads :
