THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1186 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This is a glaring example of a case of speculative litigation. According to the claimant, he suffered an eye injury way back in the year 1985 during the course of employment. However, he did not make any claim for more than 17 years while he was in service. After his retirement and after obtaining all the retiral benefits, petitioner laid the present claim under Workmen’s Compensation Act after more than 17½ years, as of today, it is more than 25 years. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada dismissed the said claim vide impugned order dated 29.10.2004 by recording reasons, which reads as under: “Evidently there lies no material or sufficient reason or grounds for the delay in preferring the claim application. In other words, the petitioner has been in continuous service and getting his regular salary without any less payment owing to the said alleged accident/incident thereby, there is no deficiency or disability caused by the alleged accident. It is also seen that the petitioner never reported about the alleged accident/incident either to his employer or Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act which is a mandatory under the provisions of Section 10 of W.C. Act to bring to the notice of the said authority immediately and as and when such an accident/incident occurred. In fact, this is also pointed out by the Respondent/Employer in the counter stating that it is a belated claim never brought to the notice of the concerned authorities. The provision of law quoted on the petition is irrelevant and unconnected under W.C. Act for condonation of delay, since there exists a clear provision under Section 10(1)(b) of W.C. Act, 1923. Further more the petitioner, as per the affidavit has already retired from service having drawn all the service benefits and regularly drawing pension having kept quite for past 17 years 5 months which did not cause any loss or less payment in his wages due to the said alleged incident itself speaks that it is meant for only wrongful gains but not legally entitled to. Under these circumstances and for the reasons already stated above, the prayer to condone the delay as made in the petition cannot be considered since there is no justified or genuine grounds. Hence the petition is hereby dismissed”. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed. In fact, against the impugned order, an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is available to the petitioner before this Court, but the same was not availed. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the circumstances, under which the petition under Workmen’s Compensation Act filed with a delay of more than 17 years was not properly considered by the Authority below and erred in dismissing the application. It appears, after filing the writ petition, the claimant also died and his L.Rs. were brought on record. The reasons, what prevented the claimant from approaching the Workmen’s Compensation Authority or approaching the employer as to compensation or making any complaint before the Authorities, are not forthcoming. May be, after 17 years, he tried to explain many a details by way of petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Authority. The very alleged accident was not reported to the employer for (17) long years. It is difficult for the petitioner to prove or for the management to contest. The delay for approaching the authority was not properly explained and this is nothing but futile, imaginary and speculative litigation. I am of the opinion that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 29.3.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1186 of 2005 29.3.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1186 of 2005 Date: 29th March, 2010 Between: V.Annappan (died) per L.Rs. V.Suseela & others. .. Petitioners And Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division & others. .. Respondents