( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the employer, M. P. Electricity Board, challenging the award dated 14-3-2001 passed by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation No. I, Gwalior in Case No. 4/99 WCA, whereby the Commissioner has awarded an amount of Rs. 46,714/ -.

( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent, Lachchiram met with an accident during the course of his employment on 5-8-1996. He was paid compensation to the sum of Rs. 1,86,854/by the present appellant assessing his disablement at 80%. Ex. P-1 is the document showing the payment to the respondent. The services of the respondent were terminated by the employer vide Ex. P-2, dated 15-5-1998 on the ground that he is unable to perform his duties due to the accident. This order was passed on the basis of medical certificate (Ex. P-3), dated 16-12-1997.

( 3. ) ONCE the services of the employee are terminated on the ground that he is not fit to continue in the service due to the injuries sustained by him he becomes entitled to 100% disablement. In the present case as he was paid an amount of Rs. 1,86,854/- assessing his disablement at 80% the claim filed by the present respondent for payment of compensation assessing his disablement at 100%, i. e. , for the balance of the amount of compensation. The Commissioner awarded the claim of Rs. 46,714/- as the balance of compensation assessing his disablement at 100%.

( 4. ) THIS appeal is filed only on the question of limitation. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that limitation as per Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act for filing the claim petition is two years when in the present case the application for payment of compensation is filed after 21-1-99, Le. , nearly two and half years of the accident. Hence, the claim petition is barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also urged that no application for condonation of delay is filed in the present case. Hence, it was incumbent for the Commissioner to dismiss the claim petition as barred by limitation. For this purpose the learned Counsel for appellant has referred to Section 10 (1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, which reads as under :-

"10. Notice and claim.-- (i) 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. . . . . . "

( 5. ) SHRI R. P. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for respondent, opposed the argument raised by Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants and urged that in the present case the appellant has no right to file claim petition for compensation for the remaining amount till his services were terminated on 15-5-1998. According to him, as per the assessment made by the employer on 7-4-1998 he was entitled to compensation only on the basis of 80% disablement which was paid to him. He, therefore, could not file the petition for compensation. The right to sue accrued to him only when his services were terminated on 15-54998 vide Annexure Ex. P-2. He became entitled to compensation on the basis of 100% disablement only after his services were terminated. Hence, the claim petition is within lime.

( 6. ) IT is true that Section 10 nowhere provides for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. However, by virtue of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the claim petition filed under the Workmen Compensation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that if there is a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing any appeal, application or other proceedings then the Court can condone the delay. In the present case, a separate application for condonation of delay is not filed. On the other hand, a statement is made by the claimant t