Honble Amitava Lala, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellants from the judgment and order dated 6th September, 2007, passed by the concerned Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,89,280/- as compensation payable to the claimant/s and in case of default payment of interest @ 6% simple interest per annum from the date of accident i.e. 2nd October, 2002, till the date of payment.

2. By challenging such judgment and order in this appeal, Mr. Anil Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner is contrary to law and equity. According to him, the deceased died in an accident on 2nd October. 2002. The application to have compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was made on 2nd May, 2006 i.e. after about four years from the date of accident. According to law, such type of application have to be made within a period of two years from the date of occurrence. However, the Commissioner is not powerless to decide the claim for compensation even beyond such period provided he is satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons for condoning the delay. Fact remains that after the death of deceased, the widow was given service in appropriate department of the office where her husband was working under Rule 5 of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The service was given to the widow when other members of the family were minors. Additionally other benefits inclusive of family pension were given to the widow of the deceased. According to him, the claimant cannot be doubly benefited by means of action under the aforesaid Rules, 1974 as well as under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

3. He has relied upon persuasive value of the judgment of learned Single Judge reported in AIR 1965 Pat 294, Soboo alias Sobhoo Mali v. M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. and 1999 (83) FLR 1065, K.R.S. Selvaraj Swamikannu v. Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and others, to establish that the delay in filing the application should be considered carefully based on sufficiency of cause. He also relied upon the judgment of three Judges Bench of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1960 SC 260, Sitaram Ramcharan and others v. M.N. Nagrashana, Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for Ahmedabad Area, Ahmedabad and others, to establish that even in case of similar provision under Payment of Wages Act, it was held that failure of establishing sufficient cause for delay in filing an appropriate application after expiry of period of limitation is fatal for his/their claim.

4. He further relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Court reported in AIR 1965 Mys 306, Smt. Zaibunnisa v. Divisional Superintendent Southern Railway, Hubli, to establish that once the compensation has been granted in one Act i.e. Railways Act, therein further compensation cannot be granted under similar provision i.e. Workmen’s Compensation Act. It was however, held that it is well recognised rule of construction that although the statement of objects and reasons might be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the historical background of the legislation, no support from that statement of objects and reasons can be derived for the interpretation of law, as it stands to ascertain the scope in the ambit of enactment even after its amendment.

5. He further relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 (2) ESC 212 (SC), A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad and others v. Sarvarunnisa Begum, to establish that when in a case of death of the husband in harness the widow expressed her willingness to accept the additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment, as per the scheme, apart from other benefits to get over the financial constraints on account of sudden death, she would not be entitled to claim the compassionate appointment. By citing this judgment, he said that his case is other way round. Here