B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the order dated 29-2-2000 passed in wca wc No. 30 of 1995 by the commissioner for workmen's compensation and labour officer, shimoga district, in allowing the claim petition for compensation. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that one sannarangappa was employed as a worker in the appellant-company. On 24-7-1992, the said sannarangappa died due to electric shock. On that day he had not attended the company's work as per attendance register maintained by the company. The wife and children filed a claim petition before the commissioner for workmen's compensation claiming the compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/ -. The commissioner has awarded the compensation of Rs. 78,824/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of accident till the date of realisation. ( 3 ) MR. Muralidher, learned counsel for the appellant has virtually taken out his heart and held it in his hand to convince me that the death had not taken in the course of the employment. His trump-card is that of the post-mortem report wherein it is stated that the death had taken place between 16 to 18 hours prior to the commencement of the postmortem examination. He also relied upon the documents in all 15 documents. The case of the appellant is that while the deceased made attempt to commit the theft of copper wire, he died of electrical shock. At the time of the death, he was wearing only baniyan and lungi. According to him, no employee was permitted to come within the factory premises without uniform. Moreover, he was absent on 24th i. e. , the date of accident. On the other hand Mr. K. s. sreekanth, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that while the deceased was cutting the grass, he came in touch with copper wire and incidentally it came in contact with the main wire. As such, he died of electrocution. Being not satisfied with the compensation, he has also filed cross-objections. ( 4 ) IN view of the rival contentions, now it is to be seen that whether there are grounds to interfere with the award of the commissioner for workmen's compensation. The other submission that was made by Mr. Muralidher is that there was delay of one year in filing the petition. ( 4 ) IN view of the rival contentions, now it is to be seen that whether there are grounds to interfere with the award of the commissioner for workmen's compensation. The other submission that was made by Mr. Muralidher is that there was delay of one year in filing the petition. ( 5 ) AS far as delay is concerned, the reason assigned is that the appellant went on promising to pay the compensation. Therefore, they waited and ultimately nothing could materialise. Being left with no option otherwise than approaching the forum, they approached the workmen's compensation commissioner. The l. rs of the deceased are also not highly educated and not conversant with the wordly affairs that too in the court matters. As such, there is delay. The commissioner condoned the delay accepting the reasons. Therefore, I am reluctant to interfere with the finding of the commissioner on the point of delay. Of course, while answering issue No. 5, the commissioner has immediately jumped to the conclusion without considering the evidence in the case and has held that deceased died on account of electrocution in the course of the employment. As such he has awarded the compensation. ( 6 ) MR. Muralidher, the learned counsel for the appellant read the evidence of p. ws. 1 and 2. His contentions are twofold. First, the deceased was absent to duty on 24-7-1992 and the second contention is that no employee was allowed to work in the factory without uniform. But he admits that he was working as a helper in the factory. As far as employment is concerned, there is no dispute. The only question is whether on the date of accident, he was cutting the grass or he was committing the theft of copper wire. When the evidence of d. ws. 1 and 2 is read there shall be an inclination to think that the alleged incident had taken place as averred by the legal heirs. The inquest panchanama clinches the issue. It is also quite possible that while cutting the grass, he might have removed the uniform. Since the appellant is the company, all its servants were at its command. There is likelihood that some evidence is led contrary to the evidence of the claimants. If the deceased was absent for duty on that day, how he was allowed to come inside the compound. Since the appellant is the company, all its servants were at its command. There is likelihood that some evidence is led contrary to the evidence of the claimants. If the deceased was absent for duty on that day, how he was allowed to come inside the compound. Even if it is believed that he had jumped over the compound wall, what was watchman doing at that time? It is not on record that copper wire was cut and it was hanging loose for more than 2 months. For this itself, the appellant has to be held responsible. It is the duty of the employer to see that safety measures should be provided so as to avoid such type of incident. Mr. Muralidher submitted that it is impossible to believe that the deceased was asked to cut the grass when he was working as labourer. Sometimes the higher officer might give instructions even after office hours to do some small work. In all probabilities the deceased must have been told to cut the grass. If the person had attempted to commit the theft of copper wire, there was no necessity for him to hold the grass in his hand. There is mention that the deceased had held grass in one hand and in another hand, there was a sickle. So under these circumstances, it is practically impossible to cut the copper wire of 8 mm with sickle. The story would have been different if the deceased had the cutting player or other kind of sharp edged weapon which was capable of cutting the copper wire. All these sequences establish that while cutting the grass, the deceased might have come in contact with the live copper wire. Therefore, I am of the opinion there are no convincing grounds to interfere with the findings of the commissioner. ( 7 ) THE cross-objection is for the inadequacy of the compensation. It is admitted that he was working as labourer. Even assuming that he was getting more salary, the maximum amount for the purpose of computing the compensation can be taken only Rs. 1,000/ -. Hence there is no merit in the cross-objections. In the light of these observations, the following order is passed: in the result, the appeal as well as cross-objection stand dismissed. --- *** --- .