SURAJ PAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has canvassed the validity of order dated 10. 3. 2003 passed by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, fatehpur, whereby the claim application of the petitioner made for payment under workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was rejected on the ground that cause of action arose after 19. 3. 1991 while the application was filed on 27. 4. 1998, i. e. , after a lapse of 7 years that too without any accompanying application for condonation of delay. In the ultimate analysis, it would appear, the objection of the opposite party was nodded in acceptance holding that the application was barred by time.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner canvassed that from the materials on record, it brooks no dispute that Dhruv Narain alias Raju was last seen on 9. 3. 1991 and ever since then his whereabouts were not known and in consequence his civil death could be presumed after a lapse of 7 years and further that after a lapse of 7 years, the application was duly filed which was within limitation period and, therefore, the submission further proceeds, the application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was within limitation and the impugned order deserves to be quashed attended with further submission that the matter be relegated for being decided in accordance with law. Per contra, Mr. S. C. Srivastava, lent prop to the order urging that the order was rightly passed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also scanned the materials and arguments advanced across the Bar. From a glance through the provisions of section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, it is evident that the claims must be preferred within 2 years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death. Section 10 (1) of the Act being germane to the controversy is quoted below: