PRITAM KUAR Vs. BHANWAR KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed by the appellant, challenging the order dated 31.1.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Kota (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Authority'), by which, claimant respondent No. 1 -Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar has been allowed the compensation of Rs. 84,716/ - to be paid by the Insurance Company. The claimant respondent No. 1 has also been 'allowed Rs. 30,300/ -towards the interest and penalty to be paid by the appellant herein and her three sons.

(2.) AFTER filing of the appeal, the office raised 9 objections including the objection in regard to the limitation and non -filing of receipt of depositing the amount awarded by the Authority. The appeal been time barred by 804 days, the appellant had also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. This Court, vide order dated 19.7.1999, over -ruled the defects and the appeal was ordered to be listed for admission. Again on 22.7.1999, notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted and disposed of. On 4.1.2000, the Court passed the following order: There is an office objection that the appeal is barred by limitation of 804 days. No order, as yet, has been passed on the application for condonation of delay. Unless order is passed on the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is not maintainable. However it appears that orders for issuance of notice on admission have been passed and the Court has also granted stay. As the proceedings are pending consideration from July, 1999, it would be appropriate to place the matter on hearing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, without passing any order on stay. The matter be listed on 13.1.2000 for the said purpose.

(3.) THE main submission of Mr. G.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, has been that the claim petition before the Authority was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the husband of the appellant, however, the Authority, without bringing the legal heirs on record and issuing them notice and further giving them an opportunity of hearing, had decided the claim petition of the respondent No. 1 -claimant against the appellant. The learned Counsel has further submitted that it was only during the execution proceedings that the appellant came to know about the claim filed by the respondent No. 1 -claimant before the Authority and, immediately thereafter, the present appeal has been filed along with the application for condonation of delay.