- (1.) The food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) employed a firm of contractors by name M/s Bhajan Singh Pratap Singh (hereinafter referred to as the contractors) for the purpose of loading and unloading the foodgrain bags in the godowns of the Corporation. One Rahat Khan, (hereinafter referred to as the employee) was one of the labourers who were employed by the contractors in the work of loading and unloading of the foodgrain bags. While engaged in this work on 8.5.1968, the employee sustained some injuries which resulted in the loss of two fingers of his left hand. The employee thereupon filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation of Rs. 2,240.00 making both the Corporation as well as the contractors liable for the said compensation. The Corporation contested the claim of the employee on the ground that he was not an employee of the Corporation but an employee of the contractors and that both under law as well as the terms of the agreement with the contractors, the Corporation was not liable to pay any compensation to the employee. The contractors remained ex parte.
(2.) The following issues were framed by the Commissioner under the Act before whom the application had been filed by the employee : 1. Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of the petitioner with the respondents or any one of them as alleged ? 2. Whether the petitioner suffered any injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment with respondent No. 2 ? 3. To what amount of compensation, it any, is the petitioner entitled in this petition ? 4. Whether any notice as required under the law had been served upon the respondent ? If not what is the effect thereof ? 5. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of the parties ? 6. Relief. The learned Commissioner held all these issues in favour of the employee and by his order dated 6.9.1971 directed the Corporation as well as the contractors to pay Rs. 2,240.00 to the employee. He has further directed that if the amount was recovered from the Corporation, then the Corporation would be entitled to be reimbursed by the contractors for the said amount. The Corporation has preferred the present appeal against the said order of the learned Commissioner.
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised both by the employee as well as the contractors that this appeal is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. The order of the learned Commissioner was passed on 6 9-1971 and under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of the order of the Commissioner. The present appeal was filed on 31.1.1972. The appeal, therefore, is filed beyond a period of 60 days from the date of the order of the Commissioner. The Corporation has, therefore, filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.;