Validity of objections raised by the employer regarding the form of the application and the limitation period, and rejection of employer's argument of employee negligence and lack of medical certificate as reasons to deny compensation

U.N.Sinha, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Sec.30 of the Workmens Compensation Act by the employer and it is directed against an order dated the 4th November. 1964, passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, by which it has been held that the respondent employee is entitled to get Rs. 1764/-, after the accident which Had occurred to him As the respondent had already received Rs. 500/-from his employer, the appellant has been directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 1264.

2. The short facts are as follows: There was an accident on the 19th June. 1961, as a result of which the respondent had lost a part of his right hand He filed an application for recovery of compensation before the Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi, on the 18th September, 1962, The case was transferred, in duo course, to the Labour Court for disposal. The case was taken up for hearing on the 1st August, 1964, when the injured person was examined The proceeding at this stage was ex parte. On the 3rd August. 1964, the injured person filed a regular petition and the appellant was given a fresh opportunity to file his rejoinder, if he so chose. A rejoinder was filed by the appellant on the 2nd September. 1964, and certain objections were taken therein, including one of limitation arising under Sec.10 of the Workmens Compensation Act. This contention has been rejected by the Presiding Officer.

Another objection which had been taken by the appellant was that the first application filed on the 18th September. 1062, was not in proper form and it should not have been entertained at all This objection has also failed substantially on the ground that particulars were supplied later on and there was no legal bar to permiting the injured person to supply particulars at some late stage in the proceeding. It is not necessary to mention any other objection taken, inasmuch as in this appeal the substantial points taken are based on the question of limitation and on the point that the first application was not in the required form.

3. SO far as the question of defective form is concerned, the Presiding Officer has stated that the defects had been remedied later on, and, in my opinion, this objection is no longer available to the employer Whatever procedural defect there was, was allowed to be rectified and this contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal must fail. Upon the question of limitation, it appears that the objection which was actually argued before the Presiding Officer was that the claim not having been made within one year of the accident, no further claim could be made beyond this time. The Presiding Officer has staled that by the amendment of Sec.10, a claim can be made within two years of the occurrence of the accident and the first claim having been made by the respondent within two years of the accident, but beyond one year of the same, in 1962, had been made well within time.

Learned counsel for the appellant has taken a new stand in this appeal by going back to the written statement filed on the 2nd September, 1964 and contending that the respondents second petition filed on the 3rd August. 1964 was beyond even two years of the occurrence. This contention is without merit, inasmuch as the second petition filed by the respondent on the 3rd August. 1964 was merely in continuation of the claim made on the I8th September 1962. No question of limitation, therefore, arises as argued in this Court and quite clearly, this point had not been taken up before the Presiding Officer in this manner and it had been contended there that even the first claim made was beyond one year of the occurrence. The objection raised on the ground of limitation must, therefore, fail.

Certain subsidiary arguments have been put forward by learned counsel for the appellant, one of which is that the respondents case was covered by Sec.3 (1) proviso (b) (ii) of the Workmens Compensation Act and that he was not entitled to any compensation, bec