F.A.O. No. 114 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 114 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 12, 2011 LMJ Logistics Limited and another …..Appellants Vs. Suresh Chand and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.D.K. Singla, Advocate for the appellants. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Vide impugned order, the Commissioner, under The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, (for short ‘the Act’), has granted compensation to the respondent- claimants for the death of son of the claimants in the premises of the appellants. F.A.O. No. 114 of 2011 (O&M) [2] Counsel for the appellants has contended that the claim was barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 10 of the Act as the claim had been filed after the lapse of period of limitation of two years; (ii) the deceased was not direct employee of the appellants as he was an employee of the contractor M/s Sri Ram Electricals of New Delhi; and that (iii) the deceased had not died during the course of employment. I have considered all the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and I am of the opinion that an appeal under Section 30 of the Act does not lie unless and until a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The proviso of Section 30 of the Act reads as follows:- “Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law in involved in the appeal……” So far as the applicability of Section 10 of the Act is concerned, the said Section does not debar a Commissioner to entertain and decide any claim of compensation even if the claim has not been preferred in due time as provided under sub-Section of Section 10. In this case the accident had occurred in the premises of the appellants as such this case would fall under proviso (a) of Section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner has exercised the jurisdiction and granted compensation to the respondents as such it cannot be said that the Commissioner has acted contrary to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. Besides this, Section 10 of the Act does not create an absolute bar on the Commissioner to adjudicate upon the claim application filed by the heirs of a Workman. The Commissioner has F.A.O. No. 114 of 2011 (O&M) [3] considered the objection of the appellants regarding the deceased being a workman and arrived at a finding of fact that he was actually a workman with the company of the appellants when he died on October 25, 2004. Taking into consideration the definition of workman under Section 2 (n) (ii) of the Act, I am of the opinion that the deceased was an employee of the appellants and he had died while working for the appellants in the premises of the appellants’ company. It cannot be said that he did not die during the course of his employment. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal as such the appeal is dismissed. January 12, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE