JUDGMENT :

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondent no. 2.

2. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 19.10.2000 passed in W.C. No. 2/99 by the respondent no. 1 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,260/- as compensation. A further prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 12.12.2000 by which the application preferred by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 19.10.2000 has been rejected by the respondent no. 1.

3. The petitioner-M/s. BCCL owns industrial collieries situated in the district of Dhanbad. The respondent no. 2 was a workman working as Mining Sirdar in the industrial colliery under the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 had alleged that an accident had occurred on 19.07.1993 in the industrial colliery as a result of which he had sustained injuries on the left side of head, left ankle joint and consequently his left eye-sight and hearing on the left ear got impaired for which an application was preferred by the respondent no. 2 before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhanbad in which a claim of Rs. 1,44,000/- was made for compensation. The petitioner had appeared on being noticed on 15.04.1999 and submitted its show-cause wherein it was claimed that the accident had occurred on 19.07.1993 as per the respondent no. 2, but the claim application was filed in the year 1999. It was further asserted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the accident as alleged by the respondent no. 2. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 was directed to appear before the Medical Board, but he did not appear, and therefore, the petitioner claims that the respondent no. 2 is not entitled to any compensation. In the show-cause filed by the petitioner reference was also made to the injury report, but since respondent no. 2 had already superannuated on 10.03.1999, he was sent to All India Institute of Medical Sciences for better treatment. An order was passed in W.C. No. 2/99 on 19.10.2000 in which the application preferred by the respondent no. 2 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 1,50,260/- as compensation. On coming to know of order dated 19.10.2000, the petitioner filed an application for recall/review of the said order which however was rejected on 12.12.2000.

4. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been delay of 6 years in making an application for compensation. Even if it is assumed that an accident had indeed taken place on 19.07.1993 but the said application was neither accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay nor the respondent no. 1 had applied its mind with respect to the delay and had straightway granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,260/- in favour of the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel submits that the proviso to Section 10 of the Employees’ Compensation Act categorically reveals the reasons found to be given for condonation of delay irrespective of the fact as to whether the claim application is accompanied with a condonation application or not. Learned counsel further submits that in course of hearing before the respondent no. 1, the date was fixed for 28.11.2000, but behind the back of the petitioner an order was already passed on 19.10.2000. It has also been submitted that the application for recall preferred by the petitioner was also not appropriately considered nor the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. It has thus been submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside considering the apparent illegality which appears on the face of such orders.

5. Although, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2, but the counter affidavit submitted by the respondent no. 2 has been perused.

6. It has been stated that there is no dispute with respect to