Sushil Harkauli and Jaya Roy, JJ. - (1.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The case has been called out but the learned Counsel for the respondents has remained absent although his name is shown in the cause list.
(2.) This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 8th August, 2000, passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jamshedpur. The brief facts are that on 6th July, 1993 the claimant met with an accident causing some injury. He was treated at the hospital of the employer and was paid salary during the period of treatment. After the treatment he joined back services with the appellant-employer and continued in the service for some time after which he resigned and joined another employer and after joining the new service the claimant preferred the claim in question on 16th November, 1998. Under the law the claim should have been preferred within two years of the accident. The claim was obviously highly time barred. Condonation of the delay was sought and was condoned by a separate order dated 22nd October, 1999, a copy of which has been enclosed with this appeal. The delay has been condoned on a very flimsy ground, namely, a letter dated 3rd June, 1998, by which the employer is alleged to have refused to honour the claim. Apparently the limitation is from the date of the accident and not from the date of refusal of the claim.
(3.) Again apparently, the alleged injury appears to have been a minor injury not even resulting any surgery and not even resulting any fracture. The workmen's Compensation Commissioner has applied item No.19 of the First Schedule holding it to be a case of partial disablement. The finding is also not sustainable on the facts found by the Tribunal itself.;