S.N.Katju, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order of the workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Meerut, rejecting the appellants application for compensation to be given to him for injuries sustained during the course of his employment in the Ordnance Factor, Muradnagar, District Meerut. The accident took place on 5.6.1954. The appellant applied for compensation on 11.10.1954. He was informed on 12.2.1957 that since he had violated the provisions of Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the workmens' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the act) he was not entitled to receive any compensation. He thereafter filed the present claim on 29.11.1957. It was contended inter alia on behalf of the respondent that the application was barred by limitation and the accident was due to the carelessness and negligence of the appellant himself and that he had violated the provisions of Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.
(2.) The Commissioner held that the appellant had sufficient cause for not having preferred his claim within the prescribed period of 12 months and thus the application was not barred by limitation. He however held that the appellant did not comply with the instructions issued by the factory and there was nothing on the record to show that the disobedience of the appellant of the orders expressly given by the factory or of the rule expressly framed by the factory for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen was not wilful. It held that the appellant was careless and negligent and had wilfully disobeyed the rules and the orders on the subject. On the aforesaid findings the Commissioner did not think it necessary to consider the question about the amount of compensation which could be given to the appellant. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the Commissioner the appellant has come in appeal to this court.
(3.) The first question for consideration is whether the application was barred by limitation. It may be mentioned that the appellant continued to work in the factory after the accident and was only away from duty during the period he was undergoing treatment in hospital for his eye trouble. It could not be denied that he applied to the department for compensation and it was only on 12.2.1957 that he was informed that he could not get any compensation. The present application was moved nearly ten months after the aforesaid order had been received by him. Under the circumstances it would be said that he had reasonable cause for not making the claim within 12 months of the accident. The appellant continued to work in the factory and it was not unreasonable on his part to hope that the representation made by him to the factory for the award of compensation would receive a favourable consideration. The fact that he waited for the reply of the factory could not lead to the inference that he had no valid ground for not lodging his claim for compensation earlier. There is no satisfactory explanation on behalf of the respondents as to why the reply to the petitioners representation was not given earlier. It took more than two and a half years for the respondents to give a reply to the appellant with regard to the claim lodged by him. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the Commissioner that the claim was not barred by limitation.;