FAO No. 5976 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5976 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.04.2011 Union of India and another ...Appellants Versus Smt. Bhupinder Kaur and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Raj K. Chug, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate for the respondents. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. This is an appeal filed by Union of India challenging the order passed by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Along with the appeal, applications seeking condonation of delay of 205 days in re-filing and 455 days in filing thereof have also been filed. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the accident, which took place on 8.2.2003, two employees had received injuries. The claim applications filed by them were separately decided by the Commissioner. The case of Shakti Parshad was decided on March 03, 2008 whereas the present case, was decided on August 11, 2008. FAO No.1325 of 2009 filed by the Commandant, Central Govt. Ammunition Depot and others against the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner in the case of Shakti Parshad was dismissed by this court on 3.8.2009, finding that the assessment of compensation has been made considering the medical certificate produced on record by the employee and the loss of earning capacity. He further submitted that loss of earning capacity of the workman in the present case was even more than 75%. The workman in the present case had expired during the proceedings before the Commissioner. Otherwise, the assessment of compensation during the FAO No. 5976 of 2010 2 present case has also been made by the Commissioner considering his loss of earning capacity. Once this court had already gone into the merits of the order passed by the Commissioner in the case of other employee, who was injured, along with the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, there is no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal and other applications are also dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 04.04.2011 sharmila