Abhay M.Naik, J.

( 1. ) Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Sheikh Habib, s/o Azim submitted an application under section 10 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 with allegations that he was working on the post of fitter in the underground mines of Damua Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd. He had been serving the colliery for more than 25 years. During his service tenure, he contracted with the occupational disease pneumoconiosis (coal mine disease) due to hazardous nature of the job and due to inhalation of the particles of coal. He was sent to the Medical Board on 28.6.1996 and was declared sufferer from pneumoconiosis to the extent of 50 per cent. It was stated that such an employee is to be paid 100 per cent compensation for the said occupational disease. He was not paid such compensation. Therefore, he submitted an application under section 10 of the said Act before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Labour Court, Jabalpur. On establishment of Labour Court at Chhindwara, the case was transferred to Chhindwara which was registered as Case No. 10 of 1993 (NF). During pendency of the case Sheikh Habib died on 24.4.1997, leaving behind his widow, the present appellant.

( 2. ) Appellant was an illiterate lady and was not aware of the case/proceedings under section 10 (supra). After the death of her husband, she came to know about the said case belatedly, i.e., after some 4-5 years. She submitted an application for bringing her name on record in place of her deceased husband which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.9.1997 on the ground that the application was submitted after an inordinate delay of more than five years.

( 3. ) Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has acted with illegality in dismissing the application for bringing the legal representative on record despite there being no prescribed period of limitation for it in the proceedings before him?"

( 4. ) The learned Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act dismissed the application for substitution merely on the ground of inordinate delay. He has not dismissed the case as having abated. Concept of abatement is a creation of statute which seems to have been recognised under sub-rules (2) and (3) respectively of rules 3 and 4 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 3 provides a procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff. Under sub- rule (1), an application is liable to be made to cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party. Limitation of 90 days is prescribed for this purpose under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sub-rule (2) further provides that where within the time limited by law, no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned. Thus, it is clear that abatement of the case would take place only if limitation is prescribed under law for bringing the legal representatives on record in place of the deceased plaintiff/applicant and abatement is provided for in case of failure.

( 5. ) The Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, has been enacted to provide for payment by certain classes of employer to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident. Thus, it is a piece of social security and welfare legislation. Its dominant purpose is to protect the workman and, therefore, the provisions of the Act should not be interpreted too narrowly so as to debar the workman from compensation which they may be found entitled to in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Chapter II fastens liability for compensation on the employer. It provides for working out the compensation. Section 10 of Chapter II empowers a Commissioner to entertain a claim for compensation. It prescribes a limitation for preferring such claim. It also empowers the Commi