Judgment Abhay M.Naik, J. ( 1. ) Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Sheikh Habib, s/o Azim submitted an application under section 10 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 with allegations that he was working on the post of fitter in the underground mines of Damua Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd. He had been serving the colliery for more than 25 years. During his service tenure, he contracted with the occupational disease pneumoconiosis (coal mine disease) due to hazardous nature of the job and due to inhalation of the particles of coal. He was sent to the Medical Board on 28.6.1996 and was declared sufferer from pneumoconiosis to the extent of 50 per cent. It was stated that such an employee is to be paid 100 per cent compensation for the said occupational disease. He was not paid such compensation. Therefore, he submitted an application under section 10 of the said Act before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Labour Court, Jabalpur. On establishment of Labour Court at Chhindwara, the case was transferred to Chhindwara which was registered as Case No. 10 of 1993 (NF). During pendency of the case Sheikh Habib died on 24.4.1997, leaving behind his widow, the present appellant. ( 2. ) Appellant was an illiterate lady and was not aware of the case/proceedings under section 10 (supra). After the death of her husband, she came to know about the said case belatedly, i.e., after some 4-5 years. She submitted an application for bringing her name on record in place of her deceased husband which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.9.1997 on the ground that the application was submitted after an inordinate delay of more than five years. ( 3. ) Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has acted with illegality in dismissing the application for bringing the legal representative on record despite there being no prescribed period of limitation for it in the proceedings before him?" ( 4. ) The learned Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act dismissed the application for substitution merely on the ground of inordinate delay. He has not dismissed the case as having abated. ) The learned Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act dismissed the application for substitution merely on the ground of inordinate delay. He has not dismissed the case as having abated. Concept of abatement is a creation of statute which seems to have been recognised under sub-rules (2) and (3) respectively of rules 3 and 4 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 3 provides a procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff. Under sub- rule (1), an application is liable to be made to cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party. Limitation of 90 days is prescribed for this purpose under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sub-rule (2) further provides that where within the time limited by law, no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned. Thus, it is clear that abatement of the case would take place only if limitation is prescribed under law for bringing the legal representatives on record in place of the deceased plaintiff/applicant and abatement is provided for in case of failure. ( 5. ) The Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, has been enacted to provide for payment by certain classes of employer to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident. Thus, it is a piece of social security and welfare legislation. Its dominant purpose is to protect the workman and, therefore, the provisions of the Act should not be interpreted too narrowly so as to debar the workman from compensation which they may be found entitled to in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Chapter II fastens liability for compensation on the employer. It provides for working out the compensation. Section 10 of Chapter II empowers a Commissioner to entertain a claim for compensation. It prescribes a limitation for preferring such claim. It also empowers the Commissioner to grant condonation in respect of statutory notice or limitation on being satisfied of sufficient cause. Powers and procedure of Commissioners are contained in section 23 which reads as follows: "23. Powers and procedure of Commissioners. It prescribes a limitation for preferring such claim. It also empowers the Commissioner to grant condonation in respect of statutory notice or limitation on being satisfied of sufficient cause. Powers and procedure of Commissioners are contained in section 23 which reads as follows: "23. Powers and procedure of Commissioners. - The Commissioner shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the purpose of taking evidence on oath (which such Commissioner is hereby empowered to impose) and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of section 195 and of Chapter 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)." ( 6. ) In view of the aforesaid, Commissioner is found empowered to exercise only the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure which are mentioned in section 23. Admittedly, Order 22 of Code of Civil Procedure containing provision for abatement is not mentioned in the aforesaid section. Thus, the provisions contained in the Act do not make the theory of abatement applicable to a case under section 10 of the Workmens Compensation Act. ( 7. ) Section 32 of the said Act empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the said Act. In exercise of such powers, the Workmens Compensation Rules, 1924, were made. Rule 41 thereof extends the applicability of certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This rule runs as under: "41. Certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to apply. In exercise of such powers, the Workmens Compensation Rules, 1924, were made. Rule 41 thereof extends the applicability of certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This rule runs as under: "41. Certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to apply. - Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these Rules the following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely, those contained in Order 5, rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order 9; Order 13, rules 3 to 10; Order 16, rules 2 to 21; Order 17; and Order 23, rules 1 and 2, shall apply to proceedings before Commissioners, insofar as they may be applicable thereto: Provided that - (a) for the purpose of facilitating the application of the said provisions the Commissioner may construe them with such alterations not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper to adapt them to the matter before him; (b) the Commissioner may, for sufficient reasons, proceed otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions if he is satisfied that the interests of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced." A perusal of the aforesaid rule reveals that the application of Order 22 of Code of Civil Procedure has not been extended to the proceedings under section 10 before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation. ( 8. ) From the aforesaid, it is clear that Order 22 of Civil Procedure Code has not been made applicable for the proceedings under section 10 (sic section 22) of the said Act. Thus, there was no question of abatement of the proceedings. Since, the case under section 10 (sic section 22) was pending at the time of submission of the application for bringing the appellant on record and since no limitation was prescribed for making such an application, the application for bringing the appellant on record could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. Moreover, learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has himself observed that appellant is either not literate or is quite less literate. The allegation that the appellant was not aware of the said case, is not found to be untrue. Workmens Compensation Act is a beneficial kind of legislation and an application under section 10 (sic section 22) could not be dismissed by the Commissioner in the absence of specific provision for limitation for bringing L.Rs. on record. The allegation that the appellant was not aware of the said case, is not found to be untrue. Workmens Compensation Act is a beneficial kind of legislation and an application under section 10 (sic section 22) could not be dismissed by the Commissioner in the absence of specific provision for limitation for bringing L.Rs. on record. ( 9. ) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. Impugned order is hereby set aside. The application for bringing the appellants name on record is hereby allowed. Learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation is directed to allow substitution of appellant in place of the deceased applicant. After allowing the necessary amendment, learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation would decide the case on merits in accordance with law in expeditious manner preferably within four months. Appeal allowed.