ANU MARY TAYADE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WORKMENS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order dated 8-1-1999 in Application No. W. C. A. No. 131/c/20 of 1995 passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Judge, Second Labour Court, Thane is under challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By the aforesaid order the learned Commissioner has refused to condone the delay in filing the application for workmens compensation under section 4 (a) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation from the respondent-Corporation for the alleged employment injury arising out of the accident during the course of his employment.

(2.) ACCORDING to the applicant who died during the pendency of the petition on 19-4-2002, he was employed as a driver with the Corporation from 21-4-1986. According to him, during the course of and arising out of his employment he met an accident on 18-11-1990 whereby he sustained injuries which made him totally permanently disabled as a driver. The deceased applicant further alleged that he was not paid compensation in accordance with law. According to him, he was pursuing the matter in the following manner.

(3.) THE deceased applicant had approached the Union as the Corporation had not paid workmens compensation. The Union told him to bring civil surgeon certificate. The Civil Surgeon, Thane certified him to be permanently disabled as a driver on 16-10-1991. The Union addressed a letter dated 18-10-1991 demanding from the Corporation that the applicant should be given compensation. It appears that there was no reply to the said letter addressed by the Union. The applicant himself wrote two letters dated 12-1-1992 and 9-10-1992 requesting the administration to give him compensation. One more important date which cannot be missed is that on 4-1-1991 he had addressed a letter to the Personnel Officer of the Corporation that he was totally disabled to work as a driver as he had sustained serious injury to his knee which was totally dislocated he therefore, tendered his resignation and requested the administration to employ his son as there was no earning hand in his family. In this letter he has also written that if his son would be employed he would not claim any compensation. Accordingly, it appears that on 10-10-1991 the applicants son was employed by the Corporation. Even thereafter however, he continued to pursue his claim for compensation as aforesaid. He thereafter caused a notice to be issued on 2-8-1993 through his Advocate calling upon the administration to get him compensation on account of the employment injury. It appears that thereafter he could not file the application for workmens compensation before the Commissioner as his son aged 30 years died at his native place on 25-12-1993. It appears that because of the tragic death of his son he was required to go to his native place. It appears that he must have collapsed due to this natural calamity and, therefore, he remained at his native place. The tragic death of his 30 years son must have made him lose sight of his claim for compensation. As the time is great healer for every injury, after sometime he must have realised that the source of livelihood at dried up and therefore, he returned to Thane in search of bread. It appears that with the help of the friends in the Union he filed the present application for workmens compensation on 7-6-1995 claiming compensation from the Corporation under the said Act on account of the employment injury. Along with the said application he also filed an application for condonation of delay as the statutory period of limitation for filing such application was two years. However, the Commissioner is empowered to condone delay for sufficient cause shown by the Applicant. By the impugned order the Commissioner has refused to condone the delay and he dismissed the application for compensation. It appears that there was no end of the tragedies of the applicant. After the set back of the dismissal of the application he got another very severe and rude shock when he lost his second son aged 27 years on 24-3-1998. On account of this trauma it appears that there has been delay in filing the present petition and after filing of the present petition he himself died on 19-4-2002. He has left the legacy of the present petition for his wife. It appears that the son, who got employment with the Corporation in the place of the deceased applicant is not properly looking after the poor widow. She has now prayed for condonation of delay in filing of the application for workmens compensation filed by her husband.