{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1291 OF 2009 01- The Director Employee State Insurance Co., Panchdeep Bhawan Room No.689/690, Bibvewadi, Pune. 02- The Manager Employees State Insurance Corp. Gopal Nagar, Dhule. APPELLANT VERSUS Deelip Narayan Thakar R/o Polwal. RESPONDENT *** Shri V.D.Sonawane, advocate for appellant. *** WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1292 OF 2009 01- The Director Employee State Insurance Co., Panchdeep Bhawan Room No.689/690, Bibvewadi, Pune. 02- The Manager Employees State Insurance Corp. Gopal Nagar, Dhule. APPELLANT {2} VERSUS Nandkumar Gopal Kulkarni Sudarshan Sahakari Society Shakkar Bardi Road, Saelar Wadi Dhule. RESPONDENT *** Shri V.D.Sonawane, advocate for appellant. *** WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1294 OF 2009 01- The Director Employee State Insurance Co., Panchdeep Bhawan Room No.689/690, Bibvewadi, Pune. 02- The Manager Employees State Insurance Corp. Gopal Nagar, Dhule. APPELLANT VERSUS Satish Vedant Joshi Mohadi Upnagar, Mohadi Tq. & Dist. Dhule. RESPONDENT *** Shri V.D.Sonawane, advocate for appellant. *** WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1295 OF 2009 01- The Director Employee State Insurance Co., Panchdeep Bhawan Room No.689/690, Bibvewadi, Pune. {3} 02- The Manager Employees State Insurance Corp. Gopal Nagar, Dhule. APPELLANT VERSUS Anil Namdeo Wagh R/o Shriram Nagar Near Govt. Milk Diary, Dhule. RESPONDENT *** Shri V.D.Sonawane, advocate for appellant. *** WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2009 01- The Director Employee State Insurance Co., Panchdeep Bhawan Room No.689/690, Bibvewadi, Pune. 02- The Manager Employees State Insurance Corp. Gopal Nagar, Dhule APPELLANT VERSUS Kailesh Laxman Wani R/o Plot No.59 Said Darshan Colony, Dhule. RESPONDENT *** Shri V.D.Sonawane, advocate for appellant. *** {4} WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1302 OF 2009 01- The Director Employee State Insurance Co., Panchdeep Bhawan Room No.689/690, Bibvewadi, Pune. 02- The Manager Employees State Insurance Corp. Gopal Nagar, Dhule. APPELLANT VERSUS Deelip Baburao Chaudhary Plot No.107, Swami Naryan Cotton Market, Dhule. RESPONDENT *** Shri V.D.Sonawane, advocate for appellant. *** WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1303 OF 2009 01- The Director Employee State Insurance Co., Panchdeep Bhawan Room No.689/690, Bibvewadi, Pune. 02- The Manager Employees State Insurance Corp. Gopal Nagar, Dhule. APPELLANT {5} VERSUS Shriram Bhaurao Shirsat R/o Pimpri Po Wadjai Tq. & Dist. Dhule. RESPONDENT *** Shri V.D.Sonawane, advocate for appellant. *** WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2009 01- The Director Employee State Insurance Co., Panchdeep Bhawan Room No.689/690, Bibvewadi, Pune. 02- The Manager Employees State Insurance Corp. Gopal Nagar, Dhule. APPELLANT VERSUS Suresh Popatrao Patil R/o Garden Press, Deopur Dhule. RESPONDENT *** Shri V.D.Sonawane, advocate for appellant. *** Coram : K.U.Chandiwal, J. Date: 25th June 2009. {6} P.C.: 01- Heard Mr.Sonwane learned counsel for the appellant / Director Employees State Insurance Corporation. The appellant feels aggrieved by the order of learned Member Industrial Court in ESI applications moved by different employees and entertaining those applications. By the order under challenge the learned Member, Industrial Court directed the appellant to pay the unemployment allowance to the employee for the period of six months under Rajiv Gandhi Shramik Kalyan Youjna w.e.f. 30th June 2005 within a month from the date of order. 02- These appeals can be disposed of at admission stage without calling for the record and also serving the notice to the respondents as the order that would be passed, does not warrant hearing the respondent. 03- According to Mr.Sonwane for the appellant, in terms of Sec.82 of the Employees State Insurance Act 1984, the following substantial question of law in these appeals. i- Whether limitation can be relaxed on the ground of ignorance of law? ii- Whether the Court has power to condone the delay in absence of statutory arrangements? 04- There is no controversy that the employees in this bunch of the matter were eligible to the benefits provided under the Rajiv Gandhi Shramik {7} Kalyan Youjna and the procedure laid down therein including the eligibility criteria contemplate under clause 12 [e] [2] thereof. Hence I need not to ponder upon eligibility conditions again. As per Clause 12 [e] [7] claim for unemployment allowance is to be submitted by the claimant at any time but not latter than six months from the date of retrenchment or unemployment to the appropriate branch office in prescribed from U-A-1, supported by documentary evidence in form proving his / her retrenchment unemployment. This certificate is to be issued by Inspector of Factories or Deputy Labour Commissioner, Workman Compensation Commissioner or any other authority specified in this regard. 05- In the group of these cases, the employee has furnished the requisite application in form U-A-2 to the Deputy Director Industrial Safety and health within the prescribed period of six months from the date of unemployment. It was these authorities who were required to further process the application and submit it to the Branch Manager of the Scheme. Unless there was a certificate from the Deputy Director in form U-A-2 the form could not have been further processed with the Branch Office. The six months period as contemplated in the scheme cannot be stretched to mean that such form necessarily should be with the Branch Office. The employee did file the form in schedule time, but, office of Deputy Director Industrial Safety and Health sit tight on the application and without processing the {8} same, allow the time to lapse. The scheme apparently does not contemplate that the employee should be a sufferer. The very heart beat of the scheme, a beneficial legislation to the employees, as immediately after retrenchment or forceful unemployment, the employees should not face financial crunch or mental agony due to loss of employment, is by way of some solace to the employee. Six months benefit provided to rehabilitate or to arrange for reemployment to the retrenched persons or employees. The very scheme should not be obliterated in the manner as the appellant desires. 06- The appellant is conscious that a procedure is carved out. The employees make an application in prescribed form to one of the officer. It was subsequent thereto, the application is to be furnished to the Branch Manager. Thus, the delay in the process should not be at the shoulder of the employee. The employee cannot be thrown away from seeking benefit of the scheme on the ground of such application was not made to the Branch Manager within prescribed period of six months. 07- In the cases at hand there is clear reference of making such application to the Deputy Director Industrial Safety and Health. There is acknowledgment from the learned Deputy Director Industrial Safety and Health, Dhule that forms are submitted by the employees. In the light of such application being received by the concerned authority within the {9} statutory period of six months, no capital can be made by the appellant / insurance corporation that the Deputy Director did not refer the date at the bottom of the certificate. The fact remains such application by the employee was within the statutory period of six months. 08- The contention of extension of six months period projected as substantial question of law, does not figure in the present appeals as there is no such extension or condonation of delay by the learned Member of Industrial Court. There is no error on the face of record in the observations of learned Member Industrial Court. The appeals sans merit. They are accordingly dismissed. No Costs. [K.U.CHANDIWAL] JUDGE /mda/0609/fa1291.09