1989 PLP 955 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 30‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3‑‑Compensation claim‑‑Application before Commissioner‑‑Limitation‑‑Plea of limitation not raised in written statement‑‑Contention that Commissioner was not justified in dismissing application as time‑barred, repelled‑‑Commissioner, in view of S. 3 of Limitation Act, 1908, was duty bound to sec if action was within time. (b) Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 30‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Compensation claim‑ Application before Commissioner‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Reason that applicant being a Pardanasheen lady was not aware of existence of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not a ground for condoning delay according to well‑known maxim "ignorance of law is no excuse". Khan A. Hamid for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st May, 1988. This is an appeal brought under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Dera Ghazi Khan, whereby the petition brought by the appellant for compensation on account of the loss of the life of her son namely Sajid Khan who when on duty was electrocuted on 28‑8‑1980 and died in the hospital on 1‑1‑1981. The only ground on which the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation has dismissed the petition of the appellant is that the petition was time‑barred. But on the merits the decision is in favour of the appellant. No application for condonation of delay was filed although in the petition it was urged that the appellant was not aware of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that although there was no separate application for condonation of delay but an affidavit was filed which was sufficient. I have perused the affidavit in which absolutely no ground for condonation of delay is given and even the factum of delay in bringing the petition is not mentioned. Learned counsel has also argued that no objection of limitation was taken by the respondent in the written statement and for this reason also the learned lower Court was not justified in dismissing the petition as time‑barred. This is true that in the written Statement such an objection was not taken but according to section 3 of the Limitation Act it is the duty of every functionary who has to discharge judicial duties to see if the petition is within time or not. Admittedly the petition was time‑barred and since the ground given for condonation of delay in the petition was not sufficient, the learned Commissioner was justified in dismissing the petition as time‑barred. The reason that the appellant being a `Parda Nisheen' lady was not aware of the existence of Workmen's Compensation Act is no ground for condoning the delay, according to the well‑known maxim ignorance of law is no excuse.

2. As upshot of the observations made above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./549/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.