Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
The applicability of Section 5 is also recognized in appeals against awards, where courts have applied the provisions to extend time for filing appeals or applications, provided the applicant fulfills the criteria for condonation ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 498"], ["
SRI MAHADEVA vs SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - Karnataka
"].Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["2023 0 Supreme(AP) 833"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1362"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 187"]- ["2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 701"]- ["2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 1352"]- ["2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 377"]- ["1987 0 Supreme(P&H) 685"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 498"]- ["
SRI MAHADEVA vs SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - Karnataka
"]
In the realm of labor law in India, timely filing of claims is crucial, but life—and workplaces—don't always align with strict deadlines. Imagine a worker injured on the job, discovering their rights after the two-year under the (ECA, formerly ). A common question arises: Is an application under acceptable alongside an ECA compensation application under Section 10?
This post dives into judicial interpretations, statutory provisions, and practical guidance. While courts generally entertain such applications, the preferred route lies in the ECA's own provisos. Note: This is general information based on precedents; consult a legal expert for your specific case.
Under , a claim for compensation must typically be filed within two years from the date of the accident or death. This timeline starts from Day 0—the incident itself. 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 171 1995 0 Supreme(MP) 1012 2016 0 Supreme(HP) 2398 2004 0 Supreme(MP) 55
Failure to meet this can bar the claim, but exceptions exist. Courts emphasize that the has discretion to relax this bar if justified. Strict adherence applies without , as seen where claims were dismissed solely on limitation without considering condonation. 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 171
The ECA itself provides relief through its provisos, particularly the fifth or last proviso to Section 10(1). This empowers the Commissioner to entertain and decide any claim to compensation... if he is satisfied that the failure... was due to . 1995 0 Supreme(MP) 1012 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 171 2016 0 Supreme(HP) 2398
Key judicial stance:- have remanded cases for condonation consideration under this proviso when initially overlooked. 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 171- Even slightly delayed claims are maintainable if is shown. 2016 0 Supreme(HP) 2398
This self-contained provision mirrors but is tailored for initial ECA claims.
Enter , 1963, which allows for appeals or applications if the appellant/applicant shows . extends this to special laws like the ECA, unless explicitly excluded.
Courts have consistently held it applicable to initial claim petitions:- By virtue of , the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the ... Section 5... if there is a . 2004 0 Supreme(MP) 55- Parties often file formal Section 5 applications with claims; courts accept them, even redirecting to Section 10 provisos without dismissal. In one case, both the parties thought... would be applicable. The correct legal position is that under Section 10(1)... 5th proviso... yet delay was condoned and remanded on merits. 1995 0 Supreme(MP) 1012
No formal Section 5 application is even mandatory—if delay reasons are detailed in the claim itself, the Commissioner can condone under Section 10. 2004 0 Supreme(MP) 55
Distinguish between initial claims (Section 10) and appeals ():
Condonation principles echo across labor statutes. In a Bihar Shops case, the condoned delay under Sec. 28 if shown, as management participated . 1967 0 Supreme(Pat) 28
Similarly, in ECA appeals, a 12-day delay by an insurer was condoned due to administrative decision-making, not negligence: Time taken by appellants in taking decision to file appeal cannot be said to be a result of gross negligent. 2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 270
General rule: Liberal construction for advances justice, but negligence or inaction bars relief. Illiterate rural women lost a 3541-day appeal condonation for prolonged negligence. 2012 0 Supreme(Raj) 419
In civil contexts, courts test : Delay is to be condoned where there is no negligence, deliberate inaction or malafides. 2007 0 Supreme(Mad) 878
These reinforce that ECA Commissioners must weigh specific, bona fide reasons.
Not all delays qualify:- Vague or generalized averments insufficient: Vague and generalized averments... did not constitute ''. 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 1008- No objection to limitation at filing waives it later. 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 171- Cause must tie to accident date, not later events unless justified. 2004 0 Supreme(MP) 55- Misfiling (Section 5 vs. proviso) isn't fatal if cause exists. 1995 0 Supreme(MP) 1012
To maximize success:1. File promptly with detailed affidavit explaining delay (e.g., medical issues, employer misleading, ignorance of rights).2. Invoke both Section 5 and Section 10 provisos for robustness.3. Support with evidence; Commissioner hears parties before deciding.4. For appeals, provide specific, non-vague reasons to avoid dismissal. 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 10085. Raise limitation objections early, or risk waiver. 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 171
Workers' rights under ECA are protective; delays don't doom claims if justified. For tailored advice, reach out to a labor law specialist. Stay informed, file smartly.
This analysis draws from reported judgments; outcomes vary by facts.
#LaborLawIndia, #LimitationAct, #ECAClaims
Whether the Commissioner can grant medical expenditure incurred by the Appellant without determination of exact amount payable U/Sec.4A(3) (a) of E.C Act, 1923? 5. ... JUDGMENT : An injured claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923(hereinafter referred to as act, 1923). ... When does the payment of compensation U/Sec.4 of E.C ....
Judgment and Award passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Durgapur is absolutely the result of non-application of mind. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed on 30.01.2023 palpably illegal and perverse. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. 7. ... The instant First Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and award dated 30th January, 2023 passed by ....
Coming to the point of limitation, it is well established that the question of limitation is a mix question of fact and law inasmuch as proviso to Section 10 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 clearly empowers the learned Commissioner to condone such delay, if the same is properly explained. ... Chakraborty that to determine whether the claim in the present case is barred under Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is a mix question ....
That was a case where delay had been condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act in setting aside an abatement. ... Support for this contention was sought on a decision under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, as was stated in the Judgment of the Supreme Court. But their Lordships stated that they were not impressed by this contention. ... of respondents 5 and 6 alone in taking other steps before filing their ....
Furthermore, the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Employees Compensation Act prohibits an employer (Opposite Parties) from contracting out of their obligations to the Employee under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act. 13. ... 5. Learned counsel for the employer stressed on Sec. 53 of the Insurance Act, also drawing support from the decision of this court in the case of Crecent Catalysts and Chemicals vs.....
The question before the Division Bench to be decided was whether, under the facts and circumstances, Article 119 of the Limitation Act or Article 137 would attract to consider an application filed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act. ... has been authoritatively determined so by the Karnataka High Court that since no period of limitation has been stipulated under Sec. 3G(5) of the National Highways Act,....
It must be noted that apart from the claim under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the workmen can also lay a similar claim before the Forum under Sec.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If workman makes the claim under Sec.33(c)(2, there is no limitation prescribed. ... Under the second proviso to Sec.20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, "any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant sati....
Compensation Act, 1923. ... Act, 1923 (for brevity the >Act?) ... under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:- Limitation Act Samvat , 1995 provides for extension of the period of 5.
(2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this section.” ... Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, which circumscribes the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, reads as follows: “30. ... The present First Appeal (FAO) has been instituted by the Appellant assailing the judgment/award....
The act governing the present dispute, i.e., the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, has been, vide The Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2009, amended, by which the word “workmen” has been substituted by “employees” rechristened as the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. 15. ... (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of section 5 o....
In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of the well settled legal position, it is to be considered whether the application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is to be allowed or not.
Hence, any application under the provision of Or. 21 of the Code is precluded from the ambit of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and hence the learned court below was not justified in allowing the limitation petition filed by the judgment-debtors under the provision of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act specifically provides that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Or. 21 of the Code may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had suffici....
Delay is to be condoned where there is no negligence, deliberate inaction or malafides on the part of the applicant. 7. It is settled law that while considering the application filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, Court should liberally exercise the discretionary power. Even while liberally exercising the discretion, Court is to test the bonafide of the reason stated by the applicant.
4. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment under appeal, allow the application under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act filed by the appellant in support of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.DR(J)503/2004 preferred by them against the award of the Workman’s Compensation Act dt. 28.05.2004 and condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.DR (J)503/2004 may be regularly registered and further be proceeded in accordance with law.
There is no provision for condonation of delay in making the application for setting aside the abatement except the provisions found in Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Order 22 in terms states that after the expiry of the period of sixty days prescribed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, an application can be filed invoking the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. If no application is made within a period of ninety days under Order 22 Rule 4 (1) of the Code, the suit abates as against the deceased defendant by virtue of sub-rule (3) of that Rule. It is in case....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
