HIRU Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 3. 12. 1990 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation in Case No. 18avca/nf/88 whereby the appellant's claim for compensation was dismissed by him on the ground of limitation.

(2.) THE appellant claimed that he was an employee of the respondent. He met with an accident on 13. 8. 1986 during the course of employment. As a result of the accident, the appellant lost his right foot which had to be amputated. The services of the appellant were terminated by order dated 28. 3. 1987 on the ground that he was medically unfit. The appellant filed an application for compensation on 13. 10. 1988. The application should have been filed by 13. 8. 1988. It appears that the appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of two months for not filing the claim within a period fixed for limitation. The claim for compensation worth Rs. 65,975/- was dismissed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Durg as there was no sufficient cause in the opinion of the Commissioner for filing the application beyond time.

(3.) IT appears that in the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner it was stated in para 3 of the application, supported by an affidavit that he was discharged on 28. 3. 1987 and even thereafter the management had promised him to pay compensation for the loss of his right foot and, therefore, he could not file the application within time. It was also pleaded that the appellant is an illiterate villager. This application, entertained by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was controverted by the respondent denying the allegations made therein in his reply. The reply is not supported by an affidavit. It is signed by the Senior Law Officer Mr. R. S. Singh. However, he has not filed any affidavit in support of his reply. Even in that reply it is not specifically stated that nobody gave any assurance to the appellant. The reply has been drafted in legalistic manner. It is said that the appellant was not entitled to any compensation and, therefore, the question of giving any assurance in that respect did not arise at all.