KUDUPUDI CHHITABHAI Vs. AINTHA TARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EMPLOYER is the appellant in this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) IN course of hearing Mr. D.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the respondent raised an objection that the appeal is barred by limitation of one day. The Stamp Reporter of the Court has not pointed out the defect and the appeal has been entertained by this Court. Though Mr. Parija, the learned Counsel for the appellant, initially submitted that the appeal is not barred by limitation, ultimately he accepted that the appeal is barred by limitation. He made oral prayer for condonation of delay of one day which is on account of mis -calculation of the last date by the learned Counsel. Oral prayer for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been entertained by this Court in the past. In I.L.R, 1975 Cuttack 1347 Chittaranjan Sahu v. Collector, Dhenkanal, B.K. Ray, J. observed:.The settled view of this Court is that a Court can condone delay in filing an appeal or application beyond time without a formal application being made by the party concerned..

(3.) RELYING upon the various relevant entries in the First Schedule, Part II of the Act, Mr. Parija submitted that the award of 60% compensation is contrary to the statutory provision. Whether the compensation is in accordance with the rates prescribed in the Schedule is to be examined whether the respondent is entitled to 60% compensation. Mr. D.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that there is clear entry in the schedule for loss of hand for which 60% compensation is payable, According to him, the loss of the thumb and first phalanges of the middle finger and ring finger would amount to loss of hand itself and there it no scope for interference in this appeal.