( 1 ) THE appellant, aggrieved from the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur dated april 2, 1998 passed in Case No. 15/w. C. A. / 97 (N. F.), has preferred this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has prayed for setting aside the order of the Commissioner, appealed against and condone the delay in filing the claim-petition before the Labour Court. ( 2 ) THE case involves a short question whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for getting the decision on the claim-petition on merit, which was dismissed as barred by time by 60 days. ( 3 ) AN application was made along with the claim-petition for condonation of delay and for deciding the claim-petition on merit. The said application was under Section 5 of the limitation Act. The objection to the application was only to the effect that in the application, the claimant has not given explanation of each day's delay and further no affidavit had been filed along with the application. ( 4 ) THE Labour Court mentioned that the application was moved before it after about 60 days and that the appellant was an illiterate person and he was assured of payment of compensation amount by the Railway. ( 5 ) THE time fixed for filing such claim petition under Section 10 of the Act is 2 years. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the applicant is not entitled for condonation of delay on the basis of the cause which he has shown. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Sanjay Agarwal and the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Mehnath banerjee. ( 7 ) THE Fifth Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 10 of Act, for the present purpose is relevant which is as extracted below: -"10. Notice and claim - (1) No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or, in case of death within two years from the date of death. Provided further that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been preferred, in due time as provided in this sub-section, if he is satisfied that failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause. "the Fifth Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act shows that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been preferred in due time, as provided in this sub-section if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim was due to sufficient cause. This provision indicates that the Commissioner has got the power to condone the delay. He could condone the delay to any extent. The only thing is that he must be satisfied that the delay was on account of sufficient cause. In the present case, firstly the cause shown was that the appellant was an illiterate person; and secondly that, he was given assurance by the railway that he would be paid compensation. No finding has been recorded whether such a cause was sufficient or not. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that such an order cannot be allowed to be sustained in law; and further, satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of the cause should be in such a manner so to advance the cause of justice. ( 9 ) IN the case of Ram Sumiran and others v. D. D. C. and others, AIR 1985 SC 606 , the court observed:"the appellants are admittedly from the rural area and in a country like ours where there is so much poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, it would not be fair to presume that everyone knows that on death of a respondent, the legal representatives have to be brought on record within a certain time. The ends of justice require that the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 5 should have been granted. The ends of justice require that the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 5 should have been granted. "in the present also, law has provided for entertaining and deciding any claim of compensation notwithstanding that the claim has been preferred not in due time as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act and for entertainment of such a claim which is not filed within two years period, depends upon the satisfaction of the Commissioner in regard to the sufficiency of the cause. Sufficiency of cause ought to be considered in such a manner so as to advance the cause of justice. The claimant in his application has stated clearly that he was an illiterate person. This fact has not been denied by the respondent and it is not the case of the respondent that the claimant was a literate person, well aware about the period as provided under Section 10 of the Act for making a claim. Secondly, he was given an assurance by the Railway for payment of compensation and this was also one of the factors which misled the appellant. So far as the illiteracy part is concerned, in regard to the legal implication, it cannot be ignored while considering the sufficiency of cause and this viewfinds support from the case of Ram Sumiran and others v. D. D. C. and others (supra ). Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kota, AIR 1955 SC 425 , observed:"a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to 'both' sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it__there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that, they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle. " ( 10 ) WE are taking a view which may advance the cause of justice and accordingly, we consider it appropriate to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Labour court. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the order of the Labour court-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Bilaspur is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner for considering and deciding the same on merit, without any technicality in regard to the delay in filing of the claim petition, as this Court has condoned the delay. In the circumstances of the case we do not consider it a case for award of the cost and awarding of cost is made easy. .