SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the claimant under section 30 (wrongly typed as section 80) of the workmen's Compensation Act against an award dated 30. 12. 1996 passed by the labour Court (Commissioner, Workmen's compensation), Mandsaur in Claim Case no. l/wc/86/non-fatal. By the impugned award, the learned Commissioner, workmen's Compensation has dismissed the claim petition of appellant (claimant) on the ground that it is preferred beyond the period of limitation. This appeal is to challenge this finding. ( 2 ) IN short, the facts leading to this appeal are that appellant (a worker) while working in the factory belonging to respondent on 31. 7. 1984, met with an accident. As a result of accident, the appellant suffered injuries in his left hand as he lost his fingers. According to appellant his left hand has become totally useless as he cannot use it for any purpose. ( 3 ) THIS led to the filing of claim petition by the appellant (claimant) before the commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court, Mandsaur) under section 10 of the Act. This application was filed on 26. 8. 1986. In the claim petition the appellant (claimant) claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 23,760 for the loss sustained due to injuries suffered by the claimant in his left hand. ( 4 ) THIS application was opposed by the respondent (employer) both on merits as also on the ground of limitation. According to respondent, the application should have been filed within two years from the date of accident, i. e. , 31. 7. 1984 as per the requirements contained in section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was alleged that since the application is made beyond the period of limitation, i. e. , more than two years and hence the same be dismissed on the ground of limitation. ( 5 ) THE appellant relying upon the proviso to section 10 of the Act which is akin to section 5 of the Limitation Act and which gives power to Commissioner to condone the delay on sufficient cause being shown pleaded a sufficient cause explaining the delay of 24 days in filing the application. The learned Commissioner did not find the cause to be sufficient dismissed the application only on the ground of delay. Resultantly, it did not consider necessary to decide the merits of the controversy. The learned Commissioner did not find the cause to be sufficient dismissed the application only on the ground of delay. Resultantly, it did not consider necessary to decide the merits of the controversy. And hence, this appeal by the claimant to get rid of the impugned award. ( 6 ) HEARD Mr. Bohra, learned counsel for the appellant (claimant) and Mr. Kamkar, learned counsel for the respondent (employer ). ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of case, in my opinion, the learned commissioner should have condoned the delay in filing the application and should have decided the application on its merit. In my opinion, the consistent approach of the courts in the matter of condonation of delay in approaching the court has been liberal and in favour of an aggrieved. It is only when the courts are satisfied that the delay is intentional, deliberate, without any explanation and quite long, then only the discretion conferred on the court is not exercised in favour of an aggrieved. ( 8 ) IN the present case, I do not find any such material against the appellant which would have taken away his right to prosecute his case on merits. A claimant a worker losing his fingers while on duty has a right to apply for claiming compensation. The delay in filing application was hardly 24 days. The claimant gave an application as to why he could not file in time. According to him he was approaching the employer time and again for settlement but it did not yield any results. He was denied compensation. According to him, he was harassed by the employer. ( 9 ) IN my opinion, there is nothing to disbelieve what the appellant has stated in his application. These are the usual methods that every employer adopts to deny the just claim of claimant. ( 10 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, I allow the appeal, set aside the impugned award and hold that the cause shown by the claimant for condonation of delay in filing application under section 10 of the act is sufficient cause and accordingly I condone the delay. As a consequence, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner, workmen's Compensation to decide the claim petition of the appellant-claimant, on merits. As a consequence, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner, workmen's Compensation to decide the claim petition of the appellant-claimant, on merits. In case, if both the parties wish to lead any evidence on merits, they are at liberty to do so. Since the matter is quite old, I direct the Commissioner, Workmen's compensation, Mandsaur, to decide the case within four months from the date of production of this order. The record of case be sent back forthwith. Costs Rs. 500. Appeal allowed. .