The court upheld the discretion to condone significant delays in claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities, particularly for illiterate claimants.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2024 passed below Exhibit 17 in Workman Misc. Application No.10 of 2024 by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Labour Court No.2, Junagadh. By the said order, the application filed for condonation of delay has been allowed, thereby condoning the delay of 13 years in filing the claim application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

2. The gist of the case is that the deceased, Hardasbhai Balubhai Parmar, who was serving as a driver, died in a vehicular accident on 17.03.2009. Respondent No.1 was the owner of the truck, and the petitioner was the insurer of the truck bearing Registration No. GJ- 10-X-8757. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, had preferred MACP No.126 of 2009 under Section 163A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.5,74,000/-. The said claim petition came to be withdrawn on 21.01.2017 with liberty to file a claim under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

2.1. Thereafter, on 08.08.2024, the claim petition was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The present petitioner appeared before the learned Commissioner and resisted the delay condonation application by contending that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and suffered from inordinate delay and laches in filing the claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

2.2. The learned Commissioner, after considering the submissions made by both the petitioner and the claimant, allowed the application, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati for the petitioner-Insurance Company.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati submits that though it was contended in the claim petition that claimant No.4 is a minor, the actual date of birth of the said claimant has not been proved. It is further submitted by the advocate Mr.Nanavati that the interest of the minor is being looked after by claimant No.1, who is the natural guardian. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati submits that though permission was sought and granted by the learned MACT in the year 2017 to file a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the present claim petition was filed only in the year 2024, and notably, without disclosing the fact of such withdrawal before the learned MACT.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati further submits that in a similar factual context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Purohit & Co. v. Khatoonbee and Another, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 783, has held that the delay in filing a claim cannot be justified solely on the ground of poverty or lack of legal awareness. Despite this, the learned Commissioner has condoned the delay of 13 years under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without appreciating the long and unexplained lapse of time.

4.2. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Shantabai Ananda Jagtap v. Jayram Ganpati Jagtap, reported in (2023) 8 SCC 171, wherein a similar claim was rejected on the ground of an unexplained delay of nine years.

4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati submits that condonation of such a stale claim would now result in the Labour Court being obliged to decide the application on merits, including issues of interest and penalty, both accruing from the date of the accident in 2009, thus potentially causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. In the absence of any reasonable or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, the learned Commissioner has committed a grave error in condoning the same.