( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 442 OF 2010 Dileep Pundlik Jadhav, R/o Waregaon, Tq. Phulambri, District Aurangabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Bajaj Auto Limited, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad. RESPONDENT .... Mr. R.S. Sarvadnya, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.V. Ghuge, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th August, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 16th October, 2009 rendered by learned Judge of the Labour Court, Aurangabad whereby his delay condonation application bearing Misc. (W.C.) Application No. 19/2001 came to be rejected. 2. The petitioner alleges that he was injured during ( 2 ) course of his employment with the respondent while he was performing duty in the premises of the factory on 16th November, 1994. He lost his left eye as a result of the accident. According to him, he was subsequently provided medical treatment and was also assured regular employment and, therefore, he did not immediately file an application for compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. He filed such application only after he realized that he was no more being considered for re- employment which was given to him during the intervening period till 1999. He filed application for compensation alongwith delay condonation application. The respondent alleged that the petitioner was not a workman but was employed as an apprentice as required under provisions of the Statute. The respondent further contended that subsequently, temporary appointment orders were issued to the petitioner because of contingency which arose from time to time. The respondent further contended that there was no assurance given to the petitioner nor any reason was available to him to file the application after such a prolonged delay of more than five (5) years. The respondent contended that immediate medical aid was provided to the petitioner at the cost of the respondent and, therefore, his vision of the injured eye was restored ( 3 ) after Intra Ocular Lens Implant Operation. The respondent asserted that there was no tangible reason to commit the delay and the application is ill-motivated. Consequently, the respondent sought dismissal of the delay condonation application. The learned Judge of the Labour Court rejected the application for the reason that the petitioner was only an apprentice and not a workman employed with the respondent and also because of inordinate delay which was inexplicable and unjustified. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. At the outset, it may be stated that the learned Judge of the Labour Court committed patent error while entering into merits of the petitioner’s eligibility to claim compensation. Whether the petitioner was an employee or that because of his appointment as an apprentice, the application for compensation could not be entertained, was the issue involved. While considering the delay condonation application, the Labour Court was required to examine as to whether there was sufficient explanation given by the petitioner in support of his contention, or that the application was unfounded. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the Workmen’s ( 4 ) Compensation Act is a beneficiary Legislation. The benefit of such Legislation cannot be denied on technical grounds. The Court is required to take a liberal approach in such a matter. The petitioner’s contention is that he was given temporary appointments from time to time till May, 1999. This fact is explicit from the record and is not denied. However, the contention of the respondent is that he was not assured of any employment in lieu of the compensation or in order to avoid the payment of compensation, but it was done on compassionate ground because he had previously worked as an apprentice and moreover, at the relevant time, workers were employed due to the contingency. This aspect of the matter may be dealt with by the Labour Court while deciding the application for compensation on merits. Still, however, the fact that from time to time, the petitioner was employed for temporary purpose till 1999, could be the reason why he remained silent. The fact that he was beneficiary of such orders kept him obliged during the relevant period and hence, he might not have rushed to the Labour Court to seek separate compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. One cannot fathom human mind. 5. In “Department of Telecommunication, Nanded vs. ( 5 ) Deelip s/o Hari Mogle” 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 596, this Court has taken the view that liberal approach is required to be taken in the context of delay caused in filing of application under section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. So also, “Vinlab Export Pvt. Ltd. Nainital, through its Manager Pawan Kumar, Lucknow vs. Karan Bahadur and another” 2006 (110) FLR 416, deals with the identical question. It may be that, the petitioner may not have a good case on merits if he is found to be a temporary apprentice and not a workman duly employed by the respondent. That has to be decided on the strength of the documentary and other evidence which may be placed on record while determining the appropriate issues arising in the claim petition itself. The impugned order, however, shows that the learned Judge of the Labour Court erroneously considered merits of the case without the regular trial of the relevant issues and influenced by such impressions, erroneously rejected the delay condonation application. Needless to say, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Judge of the Labour Court is directed to entertain the main application and decide the same ( 6 ) on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/WP442-2010