K.M. THAKER, J.

1. By present petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rajkot, whereby the learned Commissioner has allowed the miscellaneous application preferred by present respondent seeking condonation of delay in filing the Claim Petition No. 46 of 2004 seeking payment of workmen's compensation which was not paid and has not been paid by present petitioner (to the respondent), in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Heard Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner, and perused the record.

2. It appears from the record of present petition that the respondent herein was a workman, within the meaning of the said term under the provisions of the Act, in the employment with the petitioner. It also appears that on 11.10.1996, the respondent met with an accident during the course of employment. Though, in view of the provisions under sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the petitioner employer was statutorily obliged to pay compensation to the respondent workman, in accordance with provision of the Act, the compensation was, undisputedly, not paid.

2.1. It appears that for some time, the respondent did not take recourse under the provision of the Act and did not approach the learned Commissioner with appropriate application seeking compensation and the application was not made within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.

2.2. One of the reasons urged by the respondent in support of the request to condone the delay was that the petitioner employer had assured that he would be given suitable light work and would be regularly paid monthly wages and would shortly pay the compensation amount. Then in 2004, the respondent herein filed the claim application under the provisions of the Act.

2.3. The said application/claim petition filed by the respondent came to be registered as Workmen Compensation (Non-Fatal) Application No. 46 of 2004. Since the presentation of the said claim petition was delayed, i.e., the filing of the application was done after expiry of limitation prescribed under the Act, the respondent filed application seeking condonation of delay.

2.4. The said miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay was filed in the light of the provisions contained u/s 10 of the Act, particularly the proviso of the said section 10 which confers power to the learned Commissioner to condone delay and entertain the claim petition even if filed after prescribed period of limitation, if he is satisfied that the failure to prefer claim was due to sufficient cause. The said section 10 reads thus:

10. Notice and claim.--(1) No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death, within two years from the date of death:

Provided that where the accident is the contracting of a disease in respect of which the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 are applicable the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the first of the days during which the workman was continuously absent from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease:

Provided further that in case of partial disablement due to the contracting of any such disease and which does not force the workman to absent himself from work the period of two years shall be counted from the day the workman gives notice of the disablement to his employer:

Provided further that if a workman who, having been employed in an employment for a continuous period, specified under sub-section (2) of section 3 in respect of that employment, ceases to be so employed and develops symptoms of an occupational disease peculiar to that employment within two years of the cess