The discretion of the Commissioner under S.10 of the Employee's Compensation Act should be exercised liberally to prevent injustice.

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. The appellant has filed the present petition under S.30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, being aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2018, passed by the Labour Court Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation in Case No. 11 / WC Act / 2016 by which the learned Commissioner has rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground of delay.

3. The appellant's son was employee of respondent and his earnings were Rs. 1,40,000 per annum. The respondent is running the hotel which was under construction on 18.6.2007. The deceased Hajari, that is, appellant's son, when he was working on the floor, at that time, he got electric shock due to which he died on the spot. His death occurred due to negligence and not providing safety health equipment by the respondent. Thereafter, the police has registered an offence against the respondent. At the time of death, deceased was 23 years old and he was the only bread earner of the family. The appellant, thereafter, filed an application before the Commissioner for payment of compensation on account of death of her son along with application under S.5 of the Limitation Act.

4. The court below has dismissed the application filed under S.5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the claim for compensation was also rejected. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner holding that claim is barred by time is correct in available circumstances or such finding is sustainable in view of S.10 of the Act which empowers the Commissioner to entertain the claim under his discretion even on finding the same barred by the prescribed limitation? So, has the Commissioner committed error in not invoking such discretion in favour of the appellant?
(2) Whether the learned Commissioner committed error in dismissing the claim of the appellant without appreciating the admissible available evidence? If so, then its effect?

6. As the point involved is very short and the appellant is more than 70 years of age, therefore, the matter was heard finally with the consent of the parties.

7. ORDER
In the present case, the appellant has filed an application for payment of compensation on account of death of her son. While he was working under the employment of respondent, he died due to electric shock. As the said application was time - barred, therefore, an application was also filed under S.5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

8. The respondent has filed his reply and denied that the son of the appellant was in his employment and stated that he died due to his own negligence, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any compensation. He has further stated that the appellant has filed this application after a period of 6 years, 7 months and 30 days and no proper reason has been assigned for condoning the delay, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. Learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties and after recording the evidence of both the parties has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under S.5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that no proper reason has been assigned for condoning the delay.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned order.

10. As per S.10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the application has to be filed within a period of 2 years and the Commissioner has the power to entertain the application after expiry of the period of 2 years if proper r