1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 499 OF 1999 Shri Thomas Stanley ... Petitioner v/s The Shipping Corporation of India & anr. ... Respondents Mr.N.M.Ganguli for the petitioner. Mr.N. Sumnan i/by Bhatt & Saldhana for respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 1ST JULY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation on 2.12.1995 dismissing the claim filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the orders dated 4.4.1999 and 1.8.1998 passed by the Commissioner refusing to review his earlier orders. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Seaman with the 2 respondent Company since 1964. While on duty as a Helmsman, he felt a pain in his chest on 9.1.1992. Since the ship was near a port the petitioner was allowed to disembark and was admitted to the St. Joseph hospital. He continued to be a indoor patient for 20 days. Thereafter the petitioner reported for duty with respondent No.1 when he was directed to submit himself for an examination by the medical officer of the respondent Company. Accordingly, the petitioner was subjected to various tests and on 4.7.1992 he was declared unfit for work, permanently. The petitioner thereafter sought compensation from the respondent. Since the amount was refused, the petitioner filed an application for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act on 27.4.1994. 3. The respondent Company raised an objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation stipulated under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, by the impugned order dated 2.12.1995 has dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. While doing so, the Commissioner has unfortunately not borne in mind the relevant dates. There is no dispute that the petitioner suffered the chest pain on 3 9.1.1992. There is also no dispute that he was declared medically unfit on 4.7.1992 after which he filed the application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act on 27.4.1994. 4. The Commissioner unfortunately considered the date 23.10.1991 as the date of the accident although there was nothing on record to suggest this. The Commissioner has therefore calculated the limitation from this date and has held that the application was barred by limitation. 5. By a convoluted reasoning, the Commissioner has observed, “In the normal course the limitation was over by 23.10.1993. If we take the date of accident of 23.10.1993, the present matter was filed in the Court on 27.4.1994 i.e. after six months from the date of accident.” This reasoning of the learned Judge is to say the least difficult to comprehend. Why the learned Commissioner considered 23.10.1991 as the date of the accident, is also mystery. What made the learned Judge then consider 23.10.1993 as the date of the accident is also inexplicable. 6. In my opinion, the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation must be set aside. 4 7. The petitioner was declared medically unfit to join services on 4.7.1992 and, therefore, obviously the application filed on 27.4.1994 is within limitation. The limitation provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for filing the claim for compensation is two years from the date of the accident. The date on which the petitioner was declared medically unfit i.e. 4.7.1992 would be the date on which he sustained an employment injury as defined under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.. 8. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation shall decide the claim on merits. The claim shall be decided within a year from today. 9. The review applications filed by the petitioner in respect of the impugned order were rightly dismissed by the Commissioner since no review is maintainable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 10. Writ petition allowed. 11. Rule made absolute accordingly. ..... 5