JUDGMENT
S.K. Keshote, J.
1. The appeal is barred by one days, the non-claimant appellants have filed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay aforesaid.
2. Heard learned counsel for the non-claimant appellants and perused the material available on the record of the appeal.
3. This appeal is directed against the award dated 28.2.2004 of the learned Commissioner under the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923, Sikar, in case No. WCA/F/11/2002.
4. Under the impugned award the learned Commissioner awarded Rs. 1,32,941/- as compensation and further a sum of Rs. 26,434/- as penalty in favour of the claimant respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the non-claimant appellants contended that the deceased was not in the employment of the non- claimant appellants and thus no award could have been passed for the death of Kesharam in favour of the claim at respondents.
6. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the non-claimant appellants.
7. Neither before this court nor before the learned Commissioner under the Act it is disputed by the non-claimant appellants that death of Kesharam was caused by the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The dispute is only whether the deceased was the employee of the non-claimant appellants or that of Bhagirath Cement Factory.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-claimant appellants before the Commissioner under the Act and before this court is that though the deceased was in employment but he was no working for the benefit of the non-claimant appellants.
9. The Unit of Bhagirath Cement Factory was defaulter in payment of installment of loan advanced thereto by the non,- claimant appellants. The non-claimant appellant extended the loan facility amounting to Rs. 76.65 lacs to the said Unit. The outstanding dues of the non-claimant appellants against the defaulter were of Rs. 1,02,26,884.00p. On 18.9.2000 the non- claimant appellants took the possession of the Unit in exercise of its powers vested under Section 29 of the Rajasthan State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the Act, 1951’). It is not in dispute that the cement unit/factory aforesaid was mortgaged/hypothecated to the non-claimant appellants. For protection/security of the assets, which were hypothecated or mortgaged i.e., after taking possession thereof, by the non- claimant appellants, it had to make all arrangements of security thereof and the deceased was appointed as watchman. The documentary evidence has come on the record as Exhibit 10-A and 11-A, which are the vouchers of the salary paid to the deceased and the payments made by the non-claimant appellant Corporation. It may be the internal accounts adjustment between the non-claimant appellant Corporation and the Unit aforesaid but undisputed fact is that the deceased was appointed by the non- claimant appellant Corporation and the deceased was paid by it may be that amount would have been credited in the accounts of the Unit aforesaid. For all the purposes and more particularly for the purpose of the Act, 1923, a social security legislation, the relation of employer and employee was there between the non- claimant appellant Corporation and the deceased and rightly the learned Commissioner under the Act, 1923 has passed the, award against the non-claimant appellant Corporation and in favour of the claimant respondents. The non-claimant appellant Corporation, under the agreement, may have rights to recover this amount of salary paid to the deceased, from the Unit aforesaid but it cannot deny its liability and responsibility being the employer of the deceased under the Act, 1923.
10. In my opinion, in the appeal, no question of law much-less any substantial question of law does arise for adjudication of this court, this no useful purpose will be served to condone the delay of one day made in filing of the appeal.
11. In the result the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act fails and the same is dismissed.
12. Consequent upon the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal and the stay application, filed therewith, do not survive and the same are, also dismissed as barred by limitation.