JUDGMENT
Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, J.
1. This appeal arises out of an award dated 25th of January 2003 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu – Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act(for short the Commissioner) in a claim petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act File No. 10/WCA/99 dated 8.2.1999 titled Subhan Padhiar v. Food Corporation of India.
2. The respondent Subhan Padhiar filed a claim petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short the Act) against the Food Corporation of India (the Appellant) and its Regional Manager claiming an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest as compensation from the said Corporation. The respondent’s case before the Commissioner was that he was working as labour with the Corporation and was registered as such by the Corporation on 7th of October, 1987 under Registration No. 107. The respondent was working al-ongwith other labourers in the Food Corporation of India Depot Railway Head, Jammu. He was doing the job of loading and unloading the materials which was being transported through trains at Railways Station, Jammu. The wages, according to the respondent were being paid by the Corporation periodically. On 12th of June 1990 while in the course of employment he was hit by a railway engine. Due to this accident, the respondent got seriously injured and was admitted in the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu on that very day. He remained admitted in the Hospital upto 15th of July 1990. He was admitted as a case of traumatic amputation and his right lower limb above knee and right upper limb below elbow was amputated. An FIR was also lodged in this behalf, a copy of which was placed by the respondent on the file. Since the injury, according to the respondent, had occurred in the course of employment, the respondent claimed compensation from the Corporation and in this behalf submitted various applications even to the Governor of the State. The Corporation was requested even by the State authorities to pay compensation to the respondent but since no action was taken by the Corporation the respondent filed the said claim petition before the Commissioner.
3. The Commissioner on consideration of the matter found that it was established by the evidence on record that the respondent was engaged by the Corporation and that he was working as a labourer for loading and unloading the material under Registration No. 107 of 1987. The Commissioner further found that on 12th of June 1990, while the respondent was working during and in the course of employment of the Corporation, he got injured as he was hit by a Railway engine. Due to the said accident, his right lower limb above knee and upper limb below elbow was amputated. Since the respondent had suffered 100% disability, the Commissioner found him entitled to a compensation of Rs. 81,540/- under Section 4 of the Act read with Schedule-4 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual deposit of compensation in favour of the respondent.
4. Aggrieved of the said order of the Commissioner, the Food Corporation of India has through its Managing Director filed the present appeal on various grounds inter alia that the Commissioner has not properly appreciated the objections raised by the Corporation before it. According to the appellants, the claim petition was filed by the respondent after a delay of nine years of the accident so the same was under the provisions of the Act time barred. It is further alleged that the Commissioner has adjudged the respondent as a worker of the Corporation while as there is no evidence on record to establish this fact. According to the appellants they had categorically denied the employment of the respondent under them at any point of time but the Commissioner has without looking for the evidence in this behalf, returned a finding that the accident had taken place during and in the course of the employment of the appellants. Appellants have further stated that there were glaring contradictions even in the facts alleged by the respondent in the claim petition before the Commissioner. The liability, according to the respondent, under the Act arises only when a workman is injured in the accident arising out and in the course of the employment. This fact has to be proved by the claimant from his evidence while as in the present case the respondent says he was going to depot and the Train engine came from behind and hit him on the relevant date, his witness states that respondent came out of furiation and met with an accident with an engine which alone was moving on track. Thus there being a variance in the claim made by the respondent and the evidence produced, the Commissioner has not properly appreciated the evidence and has wrongly burdened the appellants with the compensation as directed by the Commissioner.
5. Besides the present appeal the respondent has filed cross objections stating therein that in view of the injury suffered by him, amount of Rs. 81,540 as awarded by the Commissioner was not a just and proper award and that under the circumstances he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,54,600 as compensation for the injury suffered by him.
6. Heard. I have considered the matter. I have gone through the award passed by the Commissioner and have also gone through the record of the case.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the award of the Commissioner cannot sustain on three main grounds, firstly, that the claim petition was barred by limitation as the same has been filed after a delay of about nine years while as under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the period of limitation provided is only two years. Since the claim petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation, the Commissioner fell into a patent illegality in accepting the same and awarding a compensation in favour of the respondent. Secondly, that the status of the respondent as a workman of the Corporation has not been satisfactorily proved by the respondent through the evidence led by him before the Commissioner. It is alleged that the Commissioner has returned a perverse finding on the issues. And thirdly, that the nature of accident is such that it could not have been suffered during the course of employment as also there was contributory negligence on the part of respondent due to which he suffered the said injury.
8. So far as the objection relating to limitation is concerned the plea has been duly considered by the Commissioner as he has specifically framed an issue on it as issue No. 4. The Commissioner has found that the claim petition cannot be said to be time barred as there is evidence on file to show that the respondent all along represented to the appellants and other State Executives for grant of compensation in terms of permanent disablement sustained by him. The Commissioner has in this behalf observed as under:
That the respondents raised objection that the claim petition of the petitioner is not maintainable being time barred. This contention of the respondents is not sustainable; is as much as, the petitioner all along represented to the respondents and other State executives for grant of compensation in terms of permanent disablement sustained by him; but when the petitioner got tired after running from pillar to the post and the respondents failed to redress the grievances of the petitioner on account of payment of compensation, the petitioner as a last resort, approached this Court by way of present claim petition seeking compensation from the respondents. In this view of the matter, the claim petition cannot be said to be time barred and as such is maintainable.
9. The Commissioner has further observed that Workmen’s Compensation Act being a social piece of legislation, passed to safeguard the interests of poor labour, legal technicalities cannot be allowed to frustrate the claims of the genuine persons. He has in this behalf observed as under:
Further, Workmen’s Compensation Act, is a social piece of legislation passed by the Union Parliament to safeguard the interests of the poor labour. Under the said act, certain rights of the poor and ill fated labourers are protected with the sole aim of redressing the grievances of the Workmen to the maximum extent. In case, such legal technicalities are allowed to exist whereby the interest of the poor workman could be marred, the very purpose of passing the said Enactment would be defeated and the survival of the poor and down trodden class of the society would be at stake.
10. Though no formal order regarding condonation of delay has been passed by the Commissioner but keeping in view the nature of the order and the grounds recorded by the Commissioner there is an implicit order for condonation of delay as the cause shown appears sufficient in the circumstances of the case. In the cases of like nature the court need not be over strict in the proof of sufficient cause. While dealing with the cases of the present nature all factors including the status and background of the claimant have to be taken into consideration. It is a common knowledge that adequate legal assistance, guidance and proper advice is not available to such sufferers due to which they are not able to approach the courts in time. Where the claimants approaches the State authorities, as has been done in the present case, and the delay occurs because the claimants, acting on the assurance from the authorities, bona fide expects redressal of grievance from such authorities the delay cannot be regarded as intentional, so as to deprive the claimant to get any relief. An employee in our country is not so literate and conscious of his rights as to rush to the Commissioner for enforcement of his rights especially when he expects some relief from the authorities. In such circumstances it is very probable that the respondent would not have thought of starting legal proceedings, implicitly believing that the authorities would settle his claim. All these factors are to be taken into consideration while considering the question of limitation. The satisfaction regarding sufficiency of cause for delay must, thus be of the Commissioner. The High Court would not normally substitute its own satisfaction for the satisfaction of the Commissioner.
11. The delay if not intentional or deliberate must not act to the prejudice of the claimant. To deliver substantial justice the court must be liberal in extending the time where the conduct of the claimant is not criminal, censurable or blameworthy.
12. I have gone through the record of the Commissioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I find sufficient reasons have been given by the Commissioner and I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Commissioner on the issue.
13. So far as the status of the respondent as a workman of the Corporation is concerned, this issue too has been dealt with by the Commissioner who has on appreciation of the evidence on file found that the respondent was at the time of accident working as an employee with the Corporation. The point raised is covered by Issue No. 1 in the claim petition which reads as under:
Whether the petitioner was an employee of the respondent?. OPP
14. The Commissioner has found that it was established by the evidence of the respondent that he was engaged by the Corporation and was working as a labourer for loading and unloading the material under Registration Mo. 107 of 1987.
15. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Commissioner has not properly appreciated the evidence and had not taken note of the fact that the respondent was working as a labourer with a mate and that he was not directly working with the Corporation.
16. The Commissioner has in this behalf referred to the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses Abdul Rehman and Abdul Gani. The respondent too has appeared as his own witness. He has stated that he was working with the Regional Manager, FCI bearing Reg. No: 107 of 1987. He was working as labourer with posting at Railway Head for loading & unloading the material. He was being paid Rs. 100/- per day as daily wages. His statement on this fact is corroborated by his witnesses namely Abdul Rehman and Abdul Ghani. This evidence is not controverted by the appellants as they have not examined any witness in rebuttal at all. From the evidence produced by the respondent the Commissioner has found as under:
That it is established by the evidence of the petitioner that he was engaged by the respondents and was working as labourer for loading & unloading the material under Registration No: 107 of 1987.
17. Since the conclusions arrived by the Commissioner are based on the evidence I do not find that any perverse finding has been returned by the Commissioner on the issue. He has appreciated the evidence and from the same found that the respondent was an employee which finding being a pure finding on question of fact cannot now be interfered with by this Court.
18. So far the next argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants regarding the nature of accident is concerned, here also I find that the finding returned by the Commissioner cannot be interfered with. The Commissioner has found that while the respondent was working as a labourer during and in the course of employment of the Corporation, he got injured as he was hit by the Railway engine and due to the injury his right lower limb above knee and upper limb below elbow were amputated. This finding is based on the un-rebutted evidence of the respondent. Thus this again is a finding on a question of fact returned on appreciation of evidence and I do not find any substantial question of law arising out of it.
19. In the fact and circumstances, I do not find any force in the present appeal which is hereby dismissed.
20. So far as cross-objections of the respondent are concerned, the respondent submits that he was getting Rs. 100/- per day when accident took place, his leg and hand/arm was imputated, the injury is therefore of permanent nature as defined under the Workmans Compensation Act. He further states that his age was 35 years at the time of accident and in view of these facts he was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 354600/-.
21. I have considered the facts of the case. Keeping in view the nature of injury, the age of the respondent and medical evidence, I find an amount of Rs. 150000/- will be a just and proper compensation in favour of the respondent under the provisions of law so the amount fixed by the award under challenge is increased from Rs. 81540/- to Rs. 150000/-.Except this modification the award is upheld and the appeal and the cross objections disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.