UMMED SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. PANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is directed against an order dated 23.8.2010 in Misc.Appeal No.2555/10 by which an appeal preferred by the applicants under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed because of non-compliance of proviso-III of Section 30 of the Act. This review petition is barred by limitation, so applicant has filed an application I.A.No.6986/11 seeking condonation of delay in filing this review petition. On notice, respondent though served but has not appeared though a counsel has been engaged by him.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for applicants, we allow I.A.NO.6986/11 and condone the delay in filing this review petition. I.A.NO.6986/11 is disposed of.

(3.) The contentions of the applicants are two fold, first, that an application was moved by the applicants for compliance of third proviso of Section 30 of the Act and without considering the application, appeal of applicants was dismissed and second, that the respondent was not an employee of the applicants and in fact he was the employee of Inder Singh and Raghunath who had taken contract to reap and thresh the crop.