MOHANAN Vs. VAKIL CHAND JOHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a workman. He sustained an injury. For compensation for that he preferred a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for short, the Act, before the Commissioner. S.10(1) of the Act makes the claim statute barred after two years. The claim preferred by the appellant was long after that. The extent of delay was about 10 months Under the last proviso to S.10(1) of the Act it is open to the Commissioner to entertain a claim even after it has become statute barred if he is satisfied that the failure to prefer the claim in time was for sufficient cause. The appellant filed a separate application to condone the delay. As there was no sufficient cause to prefer the claim in time the Commissioner found it to be barred by time and refused to go into the merits of the claim. This appeal is from that order.

(2.) According to the appellant during the relevant period he was under treatment, during that period he had demanded payment of compensation and the employer had agreed to give him the same. It is seen from the records produced in the case that the treatment undergone by the appellant had ended several months before he preferred the claim and that after undergoing treatment he was attending to his normal work in the establishment. Except his interested statement, which is not reliable, there is nothing to show that he had made demands to the employer for compensation and the employer had agreed to give him the same. Therefore there was no sufficient cause for him for not preferring the claim in due time and the Commissioner was right in finding that the claim was barred by limitation.

(3.) Mr. K. Janardhanan, appearing for the appellant did mount an argument that the Commissioner was incompetent to decide the question of limitation at the stage it was done. He strenuously argued that the proceeding had progressed to such an extent that the Commissioner was incompetent at that stage to terminate it on the ground of bar by limitation. This raises a point on S.10(1) of the Act. The prohibition in it read with the last proviso to it is to entertainment and decision of the claim if it is not preferred in due time unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the failure to prefer the claim in due time was for sufficient cause.