ORDER

1. Heard learned advocates for the applicants, learned advocate for respondent no.2 and learned AGP for respondent no.1.

2. By way of this application, the applicant seeks to condone delay of 666 days in preferring First Appeal challenging judgment and order passed in Workman Compensation (F) No.13 of 2016.

3. Before learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Jamnagar, it was case of the heirs of the deceased – Vikrambhai that deceased was permanent employee of State of Gujarat and driving Tata 407 bearing No.GJ-18-G-6961. It is further case of the applicants that under instructions, deceased was driving Tata vehicle and when he reached near Village Babnasa on 15.10.2011, suddenly there was technical fault in the vehicle; deceased tried to control the vehicle, but he failed in his attempt and vehicle was capsized. Deceased received injuries and succumbed during treatment at Gokul Hospital.

4. Upon above factual facts, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.15 lakhs with statutory benefits. Learned Trial Court declined to exercise discretion on the ground that claimants failed to prove that deceased was employee of State of Gujarat and fall within definition of employee defined in section 2(dd)(ii)(c) of the Act and also failed to prove age of deceased as well as his salary. Claimants claim came to be dismissed on 28.06.2023 by the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Jamnagar. The applicants – claimants are ignorant of law and poor persons who could not prefer appeal within stipulated time period. It is specifically stated in para 3,4 and 5 of the application.

5. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh v/s. State of Mahdya Pradesh [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339] stressed upon principle of substantial justice and held that case cannot be discarded solely on the technical ground of limitation. Para 14 of the said judgment reads as under :-

“14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”

6. In view of above, considering the facts of the present case, according to this Court, learned Trial Court has drawn claimants claim more on technical consideration rather on substantial justice. Thus, the present Civil Application deserves consideration.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Application is allowed and delay caused in preferring First Appeal is condoned.