( 1 ) THIS C. M. A. is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's componsation Act (for short the Act') against the order dated 14-10-2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-l, visakhapatnam (for short 'the Commissioner'), in W. C. M. P. No. 1 of 2003 in W. C. Case No. 29 of 2001.

( 2 ) ONE Sri Kolli Appa Tao, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3, was employed as Senior Gangman in the South Eastern Railways. He died on 25-03-2000, while in employment. The respondents filed W. C. No. 29 of 2001 before the commissioner, claiming compensation under the Act. The case was dismissed on 30-10-2001, for default. The respondents filed an application for setting aside the ordler, dismissing the W. C. case for default. Since there was delay of 411 days in presenting the application, they filed W. C. M. P. No. l of 2003 for condonation of the same. It was pleaded that the 1st respondent was suffering from heart problem and she could not appear on the relevant date. The application was opposed by the appellant. They pleaded that several relevant factors were suppressed, and that. the 1st respondent misrepresented before the Court in the matter of condonation of delay. Through the order under Appeal, the commissioner condoned the delay.

( 3 ) SRI Gouri Shanker Sanghi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents and in particular, the 1st respondent got the claim dismissed, to pave the way for consideration of the case of one of her sons, for being appointed on compassionate ground, and having secured the employment, they tried to resurrect the O. P. , by misrepresenting the facts. He contends that the averment, as to the illness of the 1st respondent was as vague as it could be, and even if it is true, nothing prevented the respondents 2 and 3 from pursuing the proceedings. Sri Y. V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that providing employment on compassionate grounds cannot be a factor, to defeat or deny the claim under the Act. He contends that those two aspects are different from each other, and that no exception can be taken to the condonation of delay.

( 4 ) THE appellant challenges the order passed by the commissioner condoning the delay of 411 days. Whatever may be the stringency in the matter of condonation of delay, in other proceedings, in the matters relating to the extension of social security benefits, such as the claims under the W. C. Act or Motor vehicles Act, the approach is somewhat liberal. Though law requires that each day's delay must be explained, the endeavour in such cases would be, to ensure that the concerned persons are extended the facility of seeking the adjudication of the matter on merits, except where the delay was deliberate or where the parties have attempted to mislead the adjudicatory authorities. In the instant case, the claim was presented by the respondents herein, seeking benefiit under the Act on account of the death of late Appa Rao. The W. C. case was dismissed for default on 30-10-2001. In her affidavit filed for condonation of delay of 411 days, the 1st respondent stated that though she was given the necessary information by her counsel, she could not appear in the proceedings, since she suffered from heart problem and she was not able to move from the bed at the relevant point of time. She further stated that the Doctor advised her to take bed rest for a long time and she could recover from illness only after about 400 days. If there was even a semblance of truth in this, no exception can be taken to condonation of delay.

( 5 ) IN their counter affidavit, filed before the Commissioner, the appellant pleaded that the respondents pursued the proceedings in relation to seeking employment on compassionate grounds and enclosed a copy of the representation dated 12-11-2001, submitted by the 1sf respondent. Appellant pleaded that, the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document