AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Order dated 06.08.2007 rejecting the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay in making a claim under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act', for short) by the Labour Courtcum Workmen Compensation Commissioner is sought to be assailed in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Upon consideration of the rival submissions, it appears that the deceased workman, who was being represented by his legal heirs and representatives, met with an accident in December, 1990 by a fall from the electric pole during his duties and in the year 1993/1994 he registered the claim with competent authority.
It appears that the deceased was granted several leaves on the ground that he met with an accident, in the year 1991 and 1992. When he submitted the disablement certificate endorsed by the Civil Surgeon, doubts were raised by G.E.B. by letter dated 29. 01.1996 as to under what circumstance the certificate was issued to him by Civil Surgeon after four years. The claim application was kept pending then.
The aforesaid facts would indicate that the deceased was pursuing the matter since the year 19931994. Thus, it is clear that he was not sitting idle and whiling away the time. By letter dated 29. 01.1996 the Gujarat Electricity Board (''GEB', for short) kept his application pending while seeking the said explanation. In the opinion of this Court once the certificate was produced, the competent authority under Section 10 of the Act was required to consider the issue of delay only and it was not permissible for GEB to raise issues on merits during the pendency of the claim by the workman. The above said documents were relevant to determine the question as to whether the workman was prevented from giving notice of claim as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act. The competent authority i.e. Commissioner then could have exercised the powers under Section 10 for deciding whether the case is made out for condonation of delay. The said facts were either not brought to the notice of the Commissioner or were not considered. In the opinion of this Court such facts are required to be considered.
It would not be correct to say that the claim was delayed until the death of the workman in the year 1999 inasmuch as the application already made somewhere in the year 1993 or 1994; was pending.
In above view of the matter, the issue of delay requires reconsideration. The petition is thus required to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order with a direction to the Commissioner to reconsider the case by taking into consideration entire material including the documents referred to herein above as also those produced with this petition. Needless to say that the authority will take independent decision however, in view of observations in para 5 (supra) it would reckon the delay between the date of accident and the claim application only.