MFA 219/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr D Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. The insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of Empl oyees’ Compensation Act 1923(now Employees’ Compensation Act 1923) challenging t he award dated 20th March 2010 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compens ation, Jorhat in WC Case No.1/2009, whereby and where-under an amount of Rs.2,84 ,340/- has been awarded as compensation to the respondent No.1/the mother of the workman concerned. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learn ed Commissioner has wrongly held that the cause of action for filing the applica tion would arise from the day when such application, which was earlier filed bef ore the learned Commissioner at Guwahati, was withdrawn, i.e. on 28th April 200 9, and as such, the claim application filed by the respondent No.1 is within tim e. Referring to the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, it is submitted that it is evident that limitation of 2 years shall commence either f rom the date of accident or from the date of death, whichever is later, in case the death of the workman is caused because of the injuries sustained by him. It is further submitted that the 5th proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 10 of th e Act though empowers learned Commissioner, WC, to extend the period of limitati on and thereby to condone the delay in filing the said application, the said pow er has not been exercised in the instant case. It appears that the respondent No.1/claimant earlier filed an applicatio n seeking compensation under the provisions of the Act before the learned Commis sioner, WC at Guwahati, within the period of 2 years from the date of the accide nt as well as the date of death of the workman i.e. 5th November 2006. The said application, however, was withdrawn on 28th April 2009 with liberty to re-file b efore the appropriate forum i.e. before the Commissioner, WC, Jorhat. The applic ation was thereafter filed before the learned Commissioner, WC, Jorhat, on 1st J uly 2009. The 5th proviso to sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act empowers the Commissioner, WC, to entertain an application seeking compensation, if such app lication is not preferred in due time i.e. within the period of limitation of 2 years, subject of course demonstration of sufficient cause in not preferring suc h application in time. The facts narrated above reveal that initially an applica tion was filed before the learned Commissioner, WC, Guwahati within the time pre scribed by law, which, however, was withdrawn on 28th April 2009 with liberty to re-file before the appropriate forum, that is, before the learned Commissioner, WC, Jorhat. Accordingly, the said application was filed on 1st July 2009. Thoug h learned Commissioner, by the impugned order, has held that the period of limit ation will commence from the date when the earlier application was withdrawn i.e . on 28th April 2009, which view of the learned Commissioner, in view of the pro visions contained in sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act, is incorrect, the respondent/claimant could demonstrate the sufficient cause in not filing the ap plication before the learned Commissioner, WC, Jorhat in time. A too-technical a pproach in the matter of claim for compensation under a beneficial piece of legi slation like Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 should be avoided. The facts narra ted above, reveal sufficient cause that prevented the respondent No.1/claimant f rom preferring the application before the learned Commissioner, WC, Jorhat, in t ime. That being the position, I am of the view that neither a question of law nor a substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal, and hence it is dismissed. No costs.