JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. (Oral) - This is an appeal challenging the order dated 03-01-2017 passed by Fourth Labour Court, Nagpur, whereby the application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the appellant in preferring an application for compensation under the provisions of the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923 has been rejected.

2. The appellant herein was working as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). It is claimed by the appellant that when he was on duty i.e. on 0-712-2007, he tried to assist a passenger who was slipping from a running train and in that process he himself slipped and that he was trapped between the train and platform, resulting in grievous injuries. As a result, during treatment, both his legs were amputated. He approached the concerned authorities, seeking compensation and medical reimbursement of Rs. 1,77,486/-. Only an amount of Rs. 19,300/- was sanctioned in this regard by the concerned authority and that payment is also yet to be disbursed.

3. It is the contention of the appellant that when he became aware of his entitlement for compensation, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an application, but on 01-08-2012, the same was withdrawn, since the said Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was advised to approach this Court and accordingly he filed Writ Petition No. 4754 of 2013. The said writ petition was also disposed of as withdrawn on 11-09-2013.

4. Thereafter, in May, 2014, the appellant filed an application before the Labour Court/Commissioner for employee''s compensation under the provisions of the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923, for compensation. As the said application was required to be filed within a period of two years under the provisions of the said Act, it was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. In the said application, the appellant explained in detail, the reasons why he had approached the Labour Court under the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923, after considerable delay. The fact that he had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and this Court was stated in the said application. It was also pointed out that after the amputation of his legs he had been finding it difficult to move around and that artificial legs were also not of much help. The applicant placed all such details on record before the Court below, but by the impugned judgment and order dated 03-01-2017, the Court below rejected the application for condonation of delay, as a result of which the claim of the petitioner on merits has not been considered at all.

5. Shri Deharia, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that there was sufficient material on record for the Labour Court to have condoned the delay and that the grievance of the appellant ought to have been considered on merits. On the other hand, Shri Lambat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there was an inordinate delay of about 5 years in approaching the Labour Court and that the appellant had failed to prove satisfactory reasons for condonation of such delay.

6. I have perused the contents of the appeal and the documents filed therewith and upon consideration of the contentions of the rival parties, I am of the opinion, that the grievance of the appellant deserves consideration. It is settled law that delay in approaching the Court for raising grievance has to be explained satisfactorily and at the same time it is expected that the Court below deals with the merits of the grievance and that it does not throw out applications or appeals by adopting hypertechnical approach. One who sleeps over his rights cannot be permitted to raise grievances beyond the period of limitation. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the appellant was at fault or he slept over his rights. The record shows that after having suffered serious life threatening injuries wh