1 wp 7555.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7555 OF 2011 1. Dnyaneshwar S/o Rayaji Magar, Age : 41 Years, Occu. : Labour, R/o Padegaon, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Jijabai W/o Rayaji Magar, Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o As above. .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Marathwada Agricultural University Parbhani, District Parbhani, Through its Registrar, 2. Station Officer, Sub-Centre of Marathwada Agricultural University Parbhani, situated at Railway Station, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri S. S. Thomre, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V. G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER, 2011. 2 wp 7555.11 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 02. The present petitioners have filed workmen’s compensation petition for compensation on account of death of deceased Rayaji who died in December 2000. The said complaint was filed in the year 2004. After the complaint was filed, the present respondents filed their written say and did not raise any objection about limitation. The evidence was also recorded and thereafter it transpired to the Court that there is delay in filing complaint and no application for condonation of delay is filed. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for condonation of delay. The Judge Labour Court, Aurangabad rejected the said application and inter alia dismissed the application for compensation. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 03. Shri Thombre, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners are rustic persons, who are residing in a village. They are not aware of the legal intricacies and as such the delay deserves to be condoned. Moreover, even the evidence has been led on merits and thereafter the objection has been raised by the 3 wp 7555.11 Court. Even the respondents have never raised objection about the same. 04. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing affidavit in reply. Shri Sakolkar, the learned counsel for respondents contend that the application has been rightly rejected. The petitioners have not stated any sufficient reason for not filing the complaint within limitation. The vague avernments are made in the application. Even no specific dates of the delay have been stated. In view of that Shri Sakolkar, the learned counsel contends that the delay cannot be condoned. The expression sufficient cause cannot be stretched to an extent that the said expression will loose its efficacy. 05. The Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 is a beneficial piece of legislation. In fact, it is a social welfare legislation. The delay in such cases will have to be liberally construed, as it appears from the record that the main petition itself has been tried and the evidence has also been led on merits and thereafter the Labour Judge, suo moto raised an objection about the limitation. No doubt, as per Sec. 3 of the Limitation Act, the objection of limitation can be raised suo moto. But taking into 4 wp 7555.11 account the fact that the petitioners have filed a petition for compensation on account of death of deceased Rayaji and that they are residing in rural village. They are rustic persons and further the fact that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation meant to compensate the legal representatives of the persons who have died during the course of and out of employment, I am inclined to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application Exhibit U-26 filed by petitioners for condonation of delay is allowed. The Judge, Labour Court, Aurangabad shall proceed with main complaint for compensation from the stage where it was dismissed and the same be decided on merits expeditiously. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11