(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the petition for compensation was not filed within the limitation as provided under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as the same was filed after the delay of 2 years. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that delay in filing the petition has been condoned by a separate order passed by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 22. 7. 2005 after considering the reasons for the delay. The learned Counsel for appellant further submits that the accident took place outside the scope of employment of the deceased. At the time of accident, he had finished the work and headed for his village and he met within an accident while crossing the railway track. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the accident took place while going and coming to the place of work in the work premises, amounts to an accident during scope of employment in which he has engaged as the accident is not unconnected with the employment. Learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance in Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner for Workmen's compensation and others, 1978 Lab IC 1279 in his support.
(2.) HAVING heard rival submissions and after going through the record, it is revealed that the question of limitation has been appropriately dealt with by the learned Commissioner while deciding the point and, therefore, this question which is a question of finding of fact that whether the claimant was prevented due to sufficient cause, is not a question of law as the same has been decided after taking into consideration the relevant factual aspect and as such this is not a legal question available to the appellant. The other question pertains to the scope of the employment of the deceased. In this regard, it is revealed that the accident took place in connection with the scope of the employment. At the time of accident he was leaving the place of work and crossing the railway track and as such it cannot be said that the matter was out side the scope of his work.
(3.) THEREFORE, in view of the aforesaid position, it is revealed that the order of compensation passed by the learned Commissioner cannot be said to be a perverse or afflicted by any illegality. This appeal is dismissed.