IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(WCA) No.428 of 2007. Date of decision: 11.08.2008. H.R.T.C. & Another …Appellants Versus Smt.Sukh Dassi …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellants: Mr.H.S. Rawat, Advocate. For the Respondents: Dev Darshan Sud,J. CMP(M) No.789 of 2008. This application has been moved by the appellants with a prayer that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. I find that the delay which has been occasioned is bonafide and is not deliberate. This application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. The application is disposed of. FAO No. 428 of 2007. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner awarding a sum of Rs.1,94,640/- as 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 compensation to the respondent-claimant. The Commissioner framed four issues, namely:- “1. Whether the deceased Late Sh.Bhagwan Dass was a workman within the meaning of the Act? ...OPP 2. Whether the accident arose out of or in the course of the employment of the Respondents and the deceased was missing while discharging his duties? …OPP. 3. Whether the amount of compensation claimed is due or any part of that amount to the applicants under the compensation Act? …OPP. 4. Whether the respondents are liable to pay such compensation as is due? …OPP.” The parties went to trial on these issues, on which evidence was led. It was proved on the record that deceased Bhagwan Dass was in employment of the appellants and was working as Chowkidar with them. He went for duty to the bus stand and on the next day the claimant was informed that Bhagwan Dass was missing from duty and she lodged a First Information Report Ex.PW-1/A which was investigated and ultimately consigned to the record as untraced. Thereafter she filed a suit for declaration that her husband was dead which was decreed in her favour on 1.9.2001 and she proved on record Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C, judgment and 3 decree in the case. The Commissioner on consideration of the entire evidence on record, allowed the claim of the workman. The Himachal Road Transport Corporation has now challenged the award on a number of grounds including the ground that the claim petition was barred by limitation. The questions raised for consideration are that the claim petition was not maintainable as the husband of the claimant was missing since 1990 and the petition was preferred in 2003 and that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to try the matter as he could not be said to be involved in any activity connected with this employment. These questions deserve to be rejected outright. The question of limitation, now sought to be urged, would not arise as it was only in the end of the year 2001 that a Court of competent jurisdiction has declared her husband to be dead. Obviously, till such a decree was passed, the claimant would have no cause of action. On the second aspect, it is undisputed that he went missing at the time when he was attending the duties of the appellants. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. August 11, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.