An appeal under Section 30(1)(a) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is maintainable when the claim for compensation is disallowed in full, regardless of the reason for disallowance.

JUDGMENT

A. S. Chandurkar, J. - The question that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether an appeal under Section 30(1)(a) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 would lie against rejection of the claim for compensation on the ground that such claim is barred by limitation ?

2. The appellants initiated proceedings under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of 1923) seeking compensation on account of the demise of their son in an accident while he was proceeding for duty at the respondent-Firm. These proceedings were filed on 25/08/2009 and the respondent opposed the aforesaid proceedings principally on the ground that same were barred by limitation as they were filed beyond the prescribed period of two years. The learned Commissioner recorded a finding that the accident in question had occurred on 07/06/2004, notice was issued by the appellants on 29/07/2009 and the claim for compensation under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 was filed on 25/08/2009. The proceedings were thus barred by limitation as prescribed by Section 10 of the Act of 1923. Incidentally the learned Commissioner also recorded findings on the evidence led by the parties that the appellants were dependent on the deceased and further that the accident in question arose out of and during the course of employment. In view of the finding that the proceedings were filed beyond limitation, the application for grant of compensation came to be dismissed by the learned Commissioner on 13/10/2011.

3. The appellants filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the aforesaid order. The learned Single Judge by order dated 20/10/2012 held that since the claim for compensation was disallowed, an appeal under Section 30(1)(c) of the Act of 1923 would be maintainable. On that ground the writ petition came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved the appellants have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

4. Shri Vishal Anand, learned counsel for the appellants submits that since there has been no adjudication on merits of the claim for compensation as filed under Section 22 of the Act of 1923, no appeal would be maintainable under Section 30(1) of the Act of 1923. According to him since the application was dismissed on the ground of bar of limitation, no substantial question of law as contemplated by Section 30(1) would arise for adjudication. Hence the only remedy available was of filing a writ petition and the same ought to have been entertained on merits. To substantiate this contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Golla Rajanna and ors. vs. Divisonal Manager and anr. (2017) 1 SCC 45. It was thus submitted that the writ petition ought to be restored and heard on merits.

5. Per contra, Shri J. L. Bhoot, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. According to him however an appeal would lie under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act of 1923 since the claim for compensation was disallowed. No case was made out by the appellants for preferring the writ petition despite availability of an alternate remedy of statutory appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act of 1923. He also referred to the cross-objection filed by the respondent by which the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner in the proceedings were sought to be challenged. In support of his submissions learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Chandrashekhar Azad vs. Workmen Compensation Commissioner 2002 (94) FLR 1227, General Manager BCCL vs. Amit Mahato 2002 (95) FLR 482 and Oriental Insurance Vs. Daivshala 2012 (2) Mh.L.J. 813. He therefore submitted that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have given due consideration to their submissions. It is not in dispute that the application for compensation file