The courts should adopt a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in matters of delay for appeals, especially concerning government litigants, to promote substantial justice.

1. This matter is referred to me by the Hon'ble Chief Justice because of the difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges constituting the Division Bench on the factual matrix whether the facts and circumstances narrated in the application under S.5 of the Limitation Act constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

2. The instant appeal, i.e., FMA No. 4481 of 2016 is filed by the applicant / petitioner challenging the judgment and order / award dated 8.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Durgapur, in Claim Case No. 36 of 2006 after a delay of 141 days.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the salient facts emerging from the instant case are adumbrated as under:

One Bijoy Kumar Chatterjee was an employee of the appellant company as explosive carrier and breathed his last on 15.11.1997 being murdered by miscreants and his body was found within the premises of the colliery. A criminal case was registered under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code .

4. The said employee was drawing the monthly wages at Rs. 2,000 and was aged about 46 years.

5. The widow of the deceased employee, who is the respondent in the instant appeal, filed an appeal on 25.9.2006 claiming death compensation of Rs. 1,66,290. Since the application was filed after nearly nine years from the date of death of her husband, an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act was also filed seeking condonation of delay.

6. The respondent No. 1 states that the compensation application could not be filed as a verbal assurance was all along given to her by the appellant herein that the death compensation would be extended to her but later on the appellant refused and failed to pay such compensation.

7. The compensation application is resisted and contested by the appellant by filing the written statement taking a plea of locus standi of the respondent to maintain and file the compensation application primarily on the ground that the death is not related to employment. A plea of limitation was also taken as and by way of demurrer.

8. Three issues were framed by the Division Bench, which are quoted under:

“(1) For that the learned Commissioner in the facts and circumstances of the case should have dismissed the case but erred in not doing the same;

(2) For that the learned Commissioner erred in law by passing the award dated 8.12.2015 by not following the provisions as contained in S.3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; and (3) For that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that admittedly the husband of the respondent was murdered after and / or outside the duty hours.”

9. Several documents were produced and marked exhibits by the respective witnesses which include the first information report, charge - sheet, death certificate, identity card, attendance register for the month of November 1996, cap lamp register, etc. The compensation court found that the deceased employee was murdered and his body was found within the colliery area after coming out to surface from the underground mine upon finishing his duty at 12 midnight. It was ultimately held that the body of the deceased employee was found at sand bunker used by the colliery to fill up excavated mine area, which is admittedly within the premises of the colliery.

10. On the aforesaid findings the compensation