P L D 1968 Karachi 374 (PLP)

Nasim Farooqi for Appellant. Respondent : in person. Date of hearing: 29th November 1967. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been brought by the Indus Glass Works Ltd. against the decision given on 30‑11‑1965 by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation,' whereby the delay in the respondent's claim for compensation was condoned by the Commissioner and compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,520.00 was awarded to the respondent for injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment with the appellant. The only ground on which I admitted this appeal for regular hearing wag the question whether there was sufficient cause within the meaning of the proviso to section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for condonation of the delay by the Com missioner in the respondent's application for compensation. The admitted facts in this connection are these.

2. Sometime in May 1961, the respondent sustained injury in his left eye in the course of his employment with the appel lant. He remained in a hospital at Hyderabad for seventy‑two days. On discharge from the hospital, it is stated, the employer gave hits an option either take compensation for the injury, or be reinstated in service on previous terms and conditions. The respondent accepted the second alternative and was accordingly re‑employed by the appellant. However, notwithstanding, this re‑employment, the respondent continued over a long, period to make applications to the Labour Officer for assistance to securing payment of compensation. The Labour Officer, ultimately, expressed his inability to do anything in the matter. The res pondent then preferred his claim for compensation before the Commissioner on 21‑I‑1965, nearly three and a half years from the date of the cause of action, when the limitation period for the claim is only one year under section 10 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner condoned this delay on the ground that re‑employment; of the respondent and his continued representations to the Labour Officer for assistance to obtain compensation were sufficient cause to justify this condonation.

3. This finding is challenged by Mr. Nasim Faruqui, who has placed reliance on the decision in Lingley v. Thomas Firth & Sons Limited ((1921) 1 K B 655) in which the claimant, at first considering her injury to be not serious, did not prefer claim for compensa tion, thereby allowing the limitation period to expire. It was held that there was no reasonable: cause for her not having made for claim within six months, which was the period prescribed for such claims. Mr. Nasim Faruqui also referred me to Abdul Malin v. Bidesi Rajwar (A I R 1939 Pat. 181) in which it was held that ignorance of the rules or of law on the part of a workman was not a reasonable cause within the meaning of the Act for condonation of delay.

4. However; since the respondent was not represented before me by counsel, Mr.Nagim Faruqui, very fairly laid before me some decisions which support the Commissioner s decision to condone delay. My attention was invited to the decision of Lahore High Court in Said Ahmed v. N. W. R. (A I R 1940 Lah. 227) in which the claim for compensation was made nearly one year after the expiry of the limitation period, that is, nearly two years after the date of the cause of action. The claimant had received injury in the course of his employment with N. W. Railway, but continued in the railway service on the same terms and con ditions which were available to him before the occurrence of the injury. Sale, 1. held that where a workman is re‑employed after the accident by the same employer, this fact is in itself sufficient cause for condonation of delay made in bringing the application for compensation. The learned Judge followed the decision of the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta in J. Hagan v. Gafur Ramzan (A I R 1934 Bom. 28) and Salamat v. Agent, East India Railway (A I R 1938 Cal. 348). In the Bombay case, the workman was re‑employed by the same employer on light duty, but on the same pay which he received before the injury. It was held that this was sufficient cause for not filing the application within the prescribed period. In the Calcutta case, tile workman, after receiving injury, continued in the Railway' a employment for 11 years, and brought his application for compensation only after his discharge from service. Derbyshire, C. I held that continued employment gave the workman sufficient cause for not instituting his claim within six months from the happening of the accident, for he was in work and likely to remain in work, for the same wages as before, and that was sufficient cause for his not bringing proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Lingley v. Thomas Firth & Sons Ltd. it was held with reference to the correspond ing provision of the English Workmen's Compensation Act, that where reasonable cause for delay is established, the bar to the maintenance of the proceeding s under the Act is removed. The High Courts of Lahore, Bombay and Calcutta took the view the re‑employment of the workman, or his continuance in the employment, with the same employer constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay made in bringing proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, I am in respectful agreement with this view. In the Calcutta case, the' delay which was condoned was of 11 years, and in the Bombay and the Lahore cases, the applications for compensation were delayed by one year. In the Instant case, the delay is nearly two and a half years, as the application was brought after about three and a half years of the occurrence of the injury. But the work men was re‑employed by the appellant on the previous terms and conditions. Following the Lahore, Bombay and Calcutta decisions, I would hold that this re‑employment was sufficient cause for the respondent in not bringing his application for compensation within the prescribed period of one year.

5. In view of the above conclusion, I see no substance in this appeal, which is consequently dismissed with costs. C. M. S. Appeal dismissed.