HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1100 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2002 passed in I.A. No. 21 of 2002 in W.C. No.1 of 2002 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal are that the 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.21 of 2002 in W.C.No.1 of 2002 to condone the delay of 116 days in filing the petition under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for compensation. The learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation observed that there was delay of 95 days only in filing the petition and thought it appropriate to decide the matter on merits and therefore condoned the delay in filing the petition and accordingly allowed the I.A., by the order under appeal dated 16.12.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the Oriental Insurance Company filed this appeal, contending that the 1st respondent, without filing the petition to condone the delay caused in filing the main petition, filed the main petition and the learned Commissioner, instead of returning the main petition on that ground, has entertained the same, which is contrary to law, and allowed the application for condonation of delay, which is filed subsequently, and thereby did not follow the procedure and thus the order under appeal cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the 1st respondent herein filed the main petition on 21.07.2001, claiming compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act. The same was numbered as W.C. No. 1 of 2002. During the pendency of the said petition, the present I.A. was filed by the 1st respondent, stating that a delay of 116 days occurred in filing the main petition and praying to condone the said delay. No doubt, when there is delay in filing the main petition, the 1st respondent ought to have filed the present I.A. at the time of filing of main petition itself, but he did not do so, and the main petition, however, was taken up by the Commissioner for adjudication, without such application for condonation of delay being filed. But however, as is evident from the record, the enquiry in the main petition commenced and the claim petitioner’s evidence was also closed. Therefore, at this stage, it would not be just and appropriate to disallow the 1st respondent to prosecute his case, on mere technicalities, and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to complete the adjudication of the claim petition on merits. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Commissioner has rightly allowed the present I.A. by the order under appeal and no interference is warranted therewith by this Court, in the present appeal. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim stay granted by this Court is vacated and the learned Commissioner is directed to dispose of the main petition in W.C. No.1 of 2002, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties. ___________________ V.SURI APPA RAO ,J 20th December, 2010 PNV