Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) -This appeal has been preferred by the appellants from the judgment and order dated 6.9.2007, passed by the concerned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,89,280 as compensation payable to the claimant/s and in case of default payment of interest @ 6% simple interest per annum from the date of accident i.e., 2.10.2002, till the date of payment.
(2.) BY challenging such judgment and order in this appeal, Mr. Anil Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner is contrary to law and equity. According to him, the deceased died in an accident on 2.10.2002. The application to have compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, was made on 2.5.2006 i.e., after about four years from the date of accident. According to law, such type of application have to be made within a period of two years form the date of occurrence. However, the Commissioner is not powerless to decide the claim for compensation even beyond such period provided he is satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons for condoning the delay. Fact remains that after the death of deceased, the widow was given service in appropriate department of the office where her husband was working under Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The service was given to the widow when other members of the family were minors. Additionally other benefits inclusive of family pension were given to the widow of the deceased. According to him, the claimant cannot be doubly benefited by means of action under the aforesaid Rules, 1974 as well as under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. He has relied upon persuasive value of the judgment of learned single Judge in Soboo alias Sobhoo Mali v. M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co., AIR 1965 Pat 294 and K. R. S. Selvaraj Swamikannu v. Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation and others, 1999 (83) FLR 1065 to establish that the delay in filing the application should be considered carefully based on sufficiency of cause. He also relied upon the judgment of three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Sitaram Ramcharan and others v. M. N. Nagrashana, Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for Ahmedabad Area, Ahmedabad and others, AIR 1960 SC 260, to establish that even in case of similar provision under Payment of Wages Act, it was held that failure of establishing sufficient cause for delay in filing an appropriate application after expiry of period of limitation is fatal for his/their claim. He further relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Court in Smt. Zaibunnisa v. Divisional Superintendent Southern Railway, Hubli, AIR 1965 Mys 306, to establish that once the compensation has been granted in one Act i.e., Railways Act, therein further compensation cannot be granted under similar provision i.e., Workmen's Compensation Act. It was however, held that it is well recognised rule of construction that although the statement of objects and reasons might be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the historical background of the legislation, no support from that statement of objects and reasons can be derived for the interpretation of law, as it stands to ascertain the scope in the ambit of enactment even after its amendment.
(3.) HE further relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad and others v. Sarvarunnisa Begum, 2008 (2) ESC 212 (SC), to establish that when in a case of death of the husband in harness the widow expressed her willingness to accept the additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment, as per the scheme, apart from other benefits to get over the financial constraints on account of sudden death, she would not be entitled to claim the compassionate appointment. By citing this judgment, he said that his case is other way round. HEre the compassionate appointment has already been received by the widow apart from other benefits, therefore, she cannot get further compensation. Mr. S. N. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that interest of the minors is not saved by virtue of such compassionate appointment. They have independent right to recover the amount of compensation under the independent Act i.e., Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment in P. P. Muhammed Koya v. N. V. Balan, 1987 (54) FLR 374, to establish the workman cannot be cabined, confined and cribbed because he had named a sum in his application as lump sum payment. This may be due to an error in calculation or like reasons. Be that as it may, the language of the statute is clear, and the message cannot be missed. The workman is entitled to get, what the statute entitles him to get.;