Project Officer, Kankanee Colliery vs Meena Devi

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

This appeal is under Section 30(i)(a) and (aa) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the award of compensation of Rs.93,367.50 by Presiding Officer in W.C. Case No.09/04 for the death of Ganpat Bhar in course of his employment.

As per the case of the claimant, the claimant, who is wife of deceased, Dumper Operator in Kankanee Colliery in the night shift at Pit No.6 on 07.05.1991. During course of his employment, he received serious injuries on the duty itself. The claim was contested by the appellant-Corporation on the ground that no accident took place on the said night. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased died an accidental death during course of his employment.

It is argued by Mr. Anoop Kumar. Mehta, the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that there was inordinate delay in preferring claim application. The accident took place on 07.05.1991, whereas claim application was preferred on 25.02.2003 without any explanation for the delay whereas, Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act provides limitation of two years in preferring claim in case of death. It is further argued that the said death was not accidental arising out in course of employment as it was not reported at the time of occurrence to any competent authority.

This appeal was admitted on 06.04.2022 on the following substantial questions of law: -

I. Whether the learned Labour Court, Dhanbad has grossly erred in allowing the application for compensation filed by the respondent under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 without condoning the delay of about 12 years in filing the application?

II. Whether in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garbhali and Anr. (2007) 11 SCC 668, the applicant is duty bound to adduce sufficient evidence to discharge onus to prove that death took place on account of the work and in absence thereof, the requirement of Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act do not stand satisfy and as such the respondent would not be entitled to any compensation?

III. Whether the learned Labour Court has grossly erred in directing the appellant to pay penalty upto 50% of the compensation amount under Section 4-A(3) of the W.C Act although the respondent herself has filed the application after a gross delay of 12 years from the date of accident?

It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that the claim filed by the Claimants are hopelessly barred by limitation, having been filed after 12 years without any explanation for the delay. As a matter of fact, the accident took place in 1991. It is argued in this regard that the claimants have been assured by the Management.

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Respondents/claimants that believing and trusting on the assurances of compensation to be paid, the claim was not filed. Further on enquiry, claimant found that no such payment had been made in her Account, the case was filed.

On the point of delay preferring claim application, reliance is placed on Maheshbhai Harkrishnabhai Belani Vs. Suleman; Civil Appeal No.2251 of 2011, wherein Gujarat High Court condoned the delay of six years in claim case under the workmen compensation case considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in 1998 (7) SCC 123.

Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of both sides it is difficult to be persuaded by the reason of delay given by the learned counsel on behalf of complainant. There is object behind providing limitation of two years under Section 10 of Employees Compensation Act for preferring claim application. The ground on which the claimants seek condonation of delay, will render entire Limitation Act an otiose and anybody can step into the Court any time with such pleas for filing delayed claim application, decades after the accident. From Exhibit A–6, it is manifest that claimant- Smt. Laungi Devi has been provided compassionate appointment in place of her husband on 09.05.1991. There is no evidence that any such assurance to pay the compensation by the Management prevented the claimant to file the claim application. The claim application being time barred, impugned order is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside.

Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.