Skip to content


National Tobacco Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Hardit Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.F.O.O. No. 99 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Cal752,56CWN187,(1952)ILLJ609Cal
ActsWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 10
AppellantNational Tobacco Co. (India) Ltd.
RespondentHardit Singh
Appellant AdvocatePhanindra Kumar Sanyal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateSunil Kumar Mitra, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredSalamat v. Agent East Indian Railway
Excerpt:
- g.n. das, j.1. this is an appeal by the employers against the decision of the commissioner for workmen's compensation allowing the claim filed by the workman for compensation in respect of an injury alleged to have been sustained by him.2. the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 16-1-1948. the claim was filed before the commissioner on 6-9-1949. one of the defences taken to the claim was that the claim is barred by the law of limitation. it is not necessary to deal with other defences which were raised in the court below. the commissioner was of opinion that as the workman was in service till july 1949 the claim was in time. under section 10, workmen's compensation act a claim has to be made within one year of the date of the accident unless there is sufficient cause for.....
Judgment:

G.N. Das, J.

1. This is an appeal by the employers against the decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation allowing the claim filed by the workman for compensation in respect of an injury alleged to have been sustained by him.

2. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 16-1-1948. The claim was filed before the Commissioner on 6-9-1949. One of the defences taken to the claim was that the claim is barred by the law of limitation. It is not necessary to deal with other defences which were raised in the Court below. The Commissioner was of opinion that as the workman was in service till July 1949 the claim was in time. Under Section 10, Workmen's Compensation Act a claim has to be made within one year of the date of the accident unless there is sufficient cause for not-making the claim earlier.

3. In this case the Commissioner was of opinion that as the workman was in service, there was sufficient cause for the workman not filing his claim earlier. In the case of Lingley v. Firth & Sons Ltd. (1921) 1 K. B. 655, it was held that the mere fact that the workman elected to continue in service did not constitute sufficient cause so as to entitle the workman to make his claim beyond the period of limitation provided for by the Act. In this case this was the only ground on which the Commissioner held that the claim was filed in time on behalf of the respondent reference was made to the case of Salamat v. Agent East Indian Railway, 42 Cal W. N. 341. In that case however the foreman of the railway administration had led the workman to believe that his claim would be settled in due course. Under those circumstances this Court held that the bar of limitation was saved and the workman could file his claim beyond the period of limitation.

4. No other ground has been suggested on behalf of the respondent explaining the reason for the delay in not filing the claim within one year as required by Section 10, Workmen's Compensation Act.

5. In these circumstances the view taken by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation cannot be sustained and this application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act must be held to be barred by time.

6. The appeal must therefore be allowed. The order of the Commissioner is set aside and the application is dismissed. But in the circumstances of this case the parties will bear their own costs. The amount deposited in Court by the employers must be refunded.

Harries, C.J.

7. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //