1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2595/2007. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT & ORS. VS. IQBAL MHAMMAD DATE OF ORDER : 06.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Manaria for the respondent. By this appeal, a challenge is given to the judgment dated 16.05.2007 passed by learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation , Udaipur awarding compensation in a tune of Rs.1,13,726/- with interest @ 12 % per annum and also the penalty in a tune of Rs.56,865/-. While assailing validity of the order impugned, the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants are: (i)The Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Udaipur erred while entertaining the claim petition though the same was filed beyond the limitation prescribed. (ii)The Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Udaipur erred while determining loss of income in a tune of 38% though the disability determined by the Medical Board was on only 15%. 2 I have examined the order impugned and also the record. From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the workman- who was working as a Mail Guard, while coming from Udaipur Airport to Udaipur City in the mail vehicle, met with an accident. Certain other employees of the Department-Employer were also accompanying the respondent – workman. The First Information Report of the accident was lodged at Police Station concern at the instance of the officers of the employer-department. The other employees, within the limitation prescribed filed their claims and the Commissioner, Workman Compensation looking to the similar nature of all cases, found it justified to condone the delay in filing the claim petition. The employer also contested the claim on merits and not on the objection regarding delay. The Commissioner, Workman Compensation is having ample power to condone the delay on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause preventing the workman to lodge the claim within the period prescribed. Such discretion is not required to be interfered, if exercised judiciously, and in the instant matter, the Commissioner, Workman Compensation exercised the discretion vested with it by application of sound discretion. 3 I also do not find any merit in the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. To substantiate the contention, reliance is also placed by learned counsel for the appellant upon a Division Bench Judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1937 Calcutta 526 holding therein that the compensation should be in consonance with the loss in earning capacity of the workman. I am in absolute agreement with the law laid down by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. However, the same is having no application in the instant matter as the Commissioner, Workman Compensation after holding 15% permanent disability, determined 38% loss in the earning capacity of the workman. The finding given is based on facts and that is also not required to be interfered with in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court as it is available only if any substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/