The court held that the rates prescribed for loss of various limbs in Schedule I, Part II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 were to be added together for computing the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Employer is the appellant in this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. In course of hearing Mr. D.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the respondent raised an objection that the appeal is barred by limitation of one day. The Stamp Reporter of the Court has not pointed out the defect and the appeal has been entertained by this Court. Though Mr. Parija, the learned Counsel for the appellant, initially submitted that the appeal is not barred by limitation, ultimately he accepted that the appeal is barred by limitation. He made oral prayer for condonation of delay of one day which is on account of mis-calculation of the last date by the learned Counsel. Oral prayer for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been entertained by this Court in the past. In I.L.R, 1975 Cuttack 1347 Chittaranjan Sahu v. Collector, Dhenkanal, B.K. Ray, J. observed:

...The settled view of this Court is that a Court can condone delay in filing an appeal or application beyond time without a formal application being made by the party concerned....

2. In view of the aforesaid observation I accepted the oral prayer and considered the question on merit. Bona fide and honest miscalculation of a learned Counsel is a sufficient cause specially when the Stamp Reporter proficient in the matter of calculation has also not pointed out the delay. My view finds support from a decision of this Court reported in ILR 1965 Cuttack 4 Bhagirathi Padhan and Ors. v. Achuta Padhan where not only the junior counsel committed the mistake in calculation but many senior advocates and Benches of the High Court also committed the same mistake. Since the mistake was held to be honest and there was no negligence, the delay was condoned in that case. In the circumstance, the oral prayer for condonation of delay of one day is acceptable. Taking into consideration was fact that a valuable right of the respondent is being taken away, I direct the appellant to pay a cost of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) to the respondent which would mitigate the prejudice caused to him. This amount shall be paid from out of the awarded amount kept in deposit.

3. In this appeal there is no dispute that the respondent sustained injuries by his thumb and first phalanges of the middle finger and ring finger were blown up by gun powder. The claim for compensation by the respondent was disputed on the ground that he is not the employee of the appellant. Though Mr. A.K. Parija, the learned Counsel for the appellant: seriously contended that on the materials on record a reasonable view cannot be taken that the appellant is the employer of the respondent, I am satisfied on perusal of the record that there are materials in support of the relationship of employer and employee and the same being a question of fact cannot be gone into in this appeal since it is to be confined to substantial question of law only.

4. Relying upon the various relevant entries in the First Schedule, Part II of the Act, Mr. Parija submitted that the award of 60% compensation is contrary to the statutory provision. Whether the compensation is in accordance with the rates prescribed in the Schedule is to be examined whether the respondent is entitled to 60% compensation. Mr. D.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that there is clear entry in the schedule for loss of hand for which 60% compensation is payable, According to him, the loss of the thumb and first phalanges of the middle finger and ring finger would amount to loss of hand itself and there it no scope for interference in this appeal.

5. Rates have been prescribed for various injuries. When they clearly come within the language of the Schedule, there is no scope for drawing an inference about the cumulative effect of all the injuries. Besides, the loss of thumb and first phalanges of the middle finger and ring finger cannot be said to be loss of hand itself, since