MAHESHBHAI HARKISHANBHAI BELANI Vs. SULEMAN ISHAK DHUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By present petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rajkot, whereby the learned Commissioner has allowed the miscellaneous application preferred by present respondent seeking condonation of delay in filing the Claim Petition No. 46 of 2004 seeking payment of workmen's compensation which was not paid and has not been paid by present petitioner (to the respondent), in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Heard Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner, and perused the record.

(2.) It appears from the record of present petition that the respondent herein was a workman, within the meaning of the said term under the provisions of the Act, in the employment with the petitioner. It also appears that on 11.10.1996, the respondent met with an accident during the course of employment. Though, in view of the provisions under sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the petitioner employer was statutorily obliged to pay compensation to the respondent workman, in accordance with provision of the Act, the compensation was, undisputedly, not paid.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner employer does not want or intend to undergo the trial and would rather prefer that the respondent's claim for compensation may be ousted on ground of delay. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2010 condoning delay in filing the application. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred present petition. This court has considered present petition on its own merits, without confronting the petitioner about maintainability of the petition in view of the provision under section 30 of the Act, which provides for statutory remedy of appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner.