FAO No. 1962 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 1962 of 2001 Date of decision: August 20, 2009 Smt. Ram Ratti ........ Appellant Versus Union of India and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. J S Maanikpur, Advocate for the appellant Ms Abha Rathore, Advocate for the respondents -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 19.05.2000 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation, Circle 2, Gurgaon, vide which the claim of the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of limitation as also on the ground that the accident did not happen during the course and out of respondent employment. Leaned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the aforesaid impugned order on the issue of limitation submitted that the Commissioner did not consider. The proviso to Section 10 (1) (b) of the 1923 Act, while deciding the FAO No. 1962 of 2001 2 claim on the ground of limitation, which reads as under:- “10. Notice and claim – (1) xx xx (a) xx xx (b) xx xx Provided further that the Commissioner may (entertain) and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been (preferred) in due time as provided in this sub- section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or (prefer) the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause.” Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the delay occurred on account of the wrong advise. The appellant had filed O A No. 144 on 21.01.1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which was dismissed on 02.01.1998. It was further submitted that the said delay was duly explained and is apparent from the fact that the husband of the appellant had died on 16/17.02.1991 in Rail accident at Gurgaon, as he was proceeding from his house to attend his official duty to Delhi Sarai Rohilla Delhi. His duty time was from 2.00 am to 10 am. He was travelling by the last train from Gurgaon to Delhi. The appellant sent a notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the 1923 Act) on 30.07.1991 within time. Thereafter, she filed Original Application No. 144 on 21.01.1994, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which was dismissed on 02.01.1998. The appellant, along with an application for compensation filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that she had submitted a notice to the respondents within time and when her claim was not granted, she preferred O.A FAO No. 1962 of 2001 3 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, on 21.01.1994. When the same was rejected being not maintainable in the Tribunal, the appellant, immediately, filed present application on 12.08.1998. As such, the delay has been explained, the same should have been granted in view of the proviso to Section 10 (1) (b) which gives enough powers to the Commissioner to do so. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It is apparent from the above proviso that the delay can be condoned, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the failure to give notice or prefer the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause. In the present case, notice was given within time and delay from 21.01.1994, the date when O A was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi up till its decision i.e. on 02.01.1998 has been fully explained. But, there was no explanation to the delay occurred from the period when two years lapsed from the date of the accident and to the filing of the O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, i.e. the delay for a period of almost of one year from 17.01.1993 to 21.01.1994. The limitation of two years has been provided under the Act, itself. It is a statutory requirement. There is absolutely no explanation for the previous delay from the expiry of two years period till the filing of the O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Each day delay has to be explained. Not a single word has been mentioned even in the grounds of appeal qua the aforesaid delay. I am, therefore, satisfied that the delay was not on account of sufficient cause. As such, no ground has been made out for interference in the impugned order dated 19.05.2000 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation, Circle 2, Gurgaon, dismissing the claim petition on the FAO No. 1962 of 2001 4 ground of limitation. There is no merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the provision to Section 10 of the 1923 Act, was not considered. In fact, the Commissioner duly noticed as follows:- “ Moreover, they have also filed the claim petition No. 18 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The previous claim petition was also time barred on 21.01.1994. No explanation has been given in the application for condonation of delay up to 21.01.1994. Delay after expiring of limitation must be explained day by day.” Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of 'Sitaram Ramcharan and others v. M N Nagrashana, Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for Ahmedabad Area, Ahmedabad and others', AIR 1960 (Supreme Court) 260, to contend that even in case of similar provision under the Payment of Wages Act, a failure of establishing sufficient cause for delay in filing an appropriate application after the expiry of the period of limitation is fatal for his claim. The delay from the date of filing of O.A. on 21.01.1994 up till its decision on 02.01.1998, was well explained, but no explanation for the period from 17.01.1993 to 21.01.1994 (after the expiry of two years period till the filing of O.A.) is forthcoming, and hence, the same could not be condoned in the absence of any good and relevant reasons. In fact, not even a word has been mentioned as to why the claim petition was not filed within two years of the limitation, as provided under the 1923 Act. The claim petition is, therefore, hopelessly time barred, which has been rightly dismissed by the Commissioner. Since the issue of limitation is decided against the appellant, there is no need to go into the second argument as to whether the aforesaid accident was FAO No. 1962 of 2001 5 occurred during the course and out of respondent employment or not. Before dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, it would be otherwise relevant to mention that the appellant was duly granted employment at Gurgaon station on compassionate ground by the respondents-department. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of 'Kanpur Jal Sansthan, Kanpur and another v. Smt. Champa Devi', 2009(1) SCT 545, in a similar situation, refused to entertain the application on account of delay, where the workmen had already been provided employment on compassionate ground. While denying the aforesaid benefit, it was held as follows:- “10. The Workmen's Compensation Act is beneficial piece of legislation like other beneficial pieces of legislation. The Skim of such type of legislation is to recover him from immediate financial constraint occurred due to an accident but it will not be used to extract money or misuse provisions of the Act. The equity is not one way traffic. Filing of claim application after about four years is clear case of after though. No explanation is available under the order as to why the application will be entertained after about four years from the accident. Even if the law is tilted towards the recipient by virtue of beneficial piece of legislation but the equitable principle can not run contrary to aforesaid principle. Grievance of the claimant is highly suspicious.” The appeal is dismissed accordingly. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 20, 2009 mohan