Judgment : 1. These two appeals are by the insurer questioning the correctness and legality of the order and awards passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division No. 2, Bellary in WCA Nos. 581/2000 and 110/2000. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are as under:- The respondents herein filed claim petitions under section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/-and Rs. 1,75,000/- respectively. It was contended by claimants that they were working as loaders in a lorry bearing registration No. MEK/9559 and when they were proceeding in the said lorry on 21. 02.1994 during the course of their employment, it met with an accident, on account of which they sustained grievous injuries and as such, they sought for award of compensation. 3. On service of notice, Respondent No.2, namely Insurance Company, appeared and filed statement of objections. The averments made in the claim petition came to be denied in toto. The insurer also specifically contended that petition was barred by limitation and claim petitions were not maintainable amongst raising other grounds. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Commissioner framed issues for consideration. Both claimants got themselves examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8. On behalf of respondents, insurance policy was produced and got marked it as Ex.R-1. No other evidence was tendered on behalf of respondents. Claimants also examined the doctor who had issued disability certificate namely Ex.P-8 and Ex. P-6. Considering the pleadings and evidence of parties, Commissioner by his order and award, has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,188/- and Rs. 33, 268/-respectively. It is these orders and awards which are questioned in these appeals. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for parties. 5. Sri. A.G. Jadav appearing on behalf of the insurer would contend that the claim petitions were not maintainable since they were barred by limitation on the ground that the accident in question took place on 21.02.1994 and claim petitions came to be filed on 10.05.2000 i.e., after a lapse of six years. He would contend that there are no averments made in the claim petition seeking condonation of delay nor any application was filed seeking condonation of delay and as such, under Section 10 of the Act, the claim petitions are barred by limitation and claim petitions are liable to be dismissed. He would contend that there are no averments made in the claim petition seeking condonation of delay nor any application was filed seeking condonation of delay and as such, under Section 10 of the Act, the claim petitions are barred by limitation and claim petitions are liable to be dismissed. He would also claim petitions are liable to be dismissed. He would also contend that 1st Respondent herein who is the claimant, had filed a complaint before jurisdictional police, and has specifically stated that she was an employee of NMDC Company and was waiting for conveyance and boarded the offending lorry to reach Thoranagal and hence, the claim petition was not maintainable. He would also submit that there was not relationship of employer and employee between claimants and 1st Respondent and as such, he sought for dismissal of claim petitions. 6. Per contra, Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned counsel appearing for claimants, would vehemently contend that the claim petitions were maintainable and as the legislation being a social beneficial legislation, it has to be read in favour of those persons for whose benefit it has been enacted and as such, he contends that a liberal construction of the enactment is to be made and draws the attention of the Court to the proviso to Section 10 of the Act to contend that Commissioner is vested with the power to condone the delay on sufficient cause being shown and thus, he would submit that Commissioner having taken note of this provision, though has not discussed the issue regarding condonation of delay, it has to be construed as the commissioner is deemed to have considered the issue and accordingly, he supports the order and award passed by the Commissioner and seeks for dismissal of the appeals. 7. This Court, while admitting the appeal on 16.06.2008, has formulated the following substantial question of law for being considered:- “Whether determination of the monthly wages by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is contrary to the Explanation II to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, as it stood on the date of accident?” It is also observed that the appellant is at liberty to urge other substantial questions of law, if any, at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. Today, Mr. 8. Today, Mr. A.G.Jadav would contend that the issue regarding maintainability of claim petitions is also a substantial question of law, which requires to be considered by this Court and he would draw attention of the Court to Question No. 4 formulated in the appeal memorandum and also the liberty given by this Court on 16.06.2008 to urge this substantial question of law and accordingly, he prays that same may be formulated as this would have a direct bearing on considering the substantial question of law formulated on 16.06.2008. 9. In view of the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the following substantial question of law would also arise for consideration in these appeals:- 1.) Whether the claim petitions filed by the claimants were maintainable since they were filed beyond the period of two years as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act? RE.QUESTION NO.1:- 10. In view of the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the following substantial question of law would also arise for consideration in these appeals:- 1.) Whether the claim petitions filed by the claimants were maintainable since they were filed beyond the period of two years as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act? RE.QUESTION NO.1:- 10. In order to appreciate rival contentions raised by parties in this regard, it would be necessary to extract Section 10 of the Act and the same reads as under:- “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 that where the accident is the contracting of a disease in respect of which the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 are applicable the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the first of the days during which the workman was continuously absent from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease: Provided further that in case of partial disablement due to the contracting of any such disease and which does not force the workman to absent himself from work the period of two years shall be counted from the day the workman gives notice of the disablement to his employer: Provided further that if a workman who having been employed in an employment for a continuous period specified under sub-section (2) of section 3 in respect of that employment, ceases to be so employed and develops symptoms of an occupational disease peculiar to that employment within two years of the cessation of employment, the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the day on which the symptoms were first detected: Provided further that the want of or any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of a claim – (a) if the claim is preferred in respect of the death of a workman resulting from an accident which occurred on the premises of the employer, or at any place where the workman at the time of the accident was working under the control of the employer or of any person employed by him, and the workman died on such premises or at such place, or on any premises belonging to the employer, or died without having left the vicinity of the premises or place where the accident occurred, or (b) if the employer or any one of the several employers or any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured workman was employed had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it occurred: Provided further that the Commissioner may entertain 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 the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause. (2) Every such notice shall give the name and address of the person injured and shall state in ordinary language the cause of the injury and the date on which the accident happened, and shall be served on the employer or upon any one of several employers, or upon any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the tread or business in which the injured workman was employed. (3) The State Government may require that any prescribed class of employers shall maintain at these premises at which workmen are employed a notice book, in the prescribed, form which shall be readily accessible at all reasonable times to any injured workman employed on the premises and to any person acting bona fide on his behalf. (4) A notice under this section may be served by delivering it at, or sending it by registered post addressed to, the residence or any office or place of business of the person on whom it is to be served, or, where a notice book is maintained, by entry in the notice-book.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 11. On reading of Section 10, it would emerge that all claim petitions are required to be filed within two years of occurrence of the accident or in the case of death, within two years from the date of death. However, proviso to Section 10 (1) of the Act creates buffer zone for claimants to file and prosecute their claim petitions even beyond the period of two years subject to the conditions enumerated in the proviso thereunder. The 5th proviso, as extracted herein above, which is the one that is attracted to the facts and circumstances of these appeals, mandates that Commissioner is empowered to entertain and decide a claim petition even in case of notice has not been given or claim has not been preferred, in due time as provided under Sub-section (1) subject to sufficient cause being shown and he being satisfied about the cause shown, Commissioner is entitled to condone the delay and entertain a claim petition which in effect means that claimants will have to plead, prove and establish that there was sufficient cause for not preferring claim petitions within the period of limitation as provided under Sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. In the instant case, a perusal of claim petitions would reveal that no such plea has been raised. Even in the examination-in-chief of both claimants, there is no whisper with regard to cause for delay in preferring the claim petitions. Though, Mr. Ravi V. Hosamani, learned counsel appearing for claimants, has made valiant efforts to persuade this Court by drawing attention of the Court to the award assailed in these appeals to contend that claimant in WCA No.581/2000 had preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act and on its dismissal he preferred the present claim petition as a ground for condoning the delay, this Court is not inclined to accept the said plea for the reason that it is only in the cross-examination with reference to employer and employee relationship, the witness has stated regarding the filing of earlier MVC petition. Neither there was a plea nor evidence regarding condonation of delay by the claimants. 12. It would be necessary to extract the objections statement of the insurer filed before the Commissioner, at paragraph 2, it has been specifically contended as follows: “the petition is barred by limitation, hence not maintainable” This fact has been noticed by the Commissioner in the order and award at internal Page No. 2 and inspite of the same, he has not only in perfunctory manner but also with total non-application of mind has proceeded to frame issues contrary to the pleadings. This clearly goes to show as to how the Commissioner has passed the order and award with a causal approach and perfunctory manner, without examining the pleadings of parties. The manner in which the Commissioner has addressed himself by adjudicating the claims, clearly exhibits that there is total non-application of mind. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that question formulated with regard to the maintainability of claim petitions has to be answered in favour of the appellant/insurer and against the respondents/claimants. 14. Having answered the issue regarding maintainability in favour of the appellant, question of considering the substantial question of law formulated on 16.06.2008 would not arise. 15. In view of the discussions made herein above, following order is passed:- ORDER (i) The appeals are hereby allowed; (ii) The order and award passed in WCA Nos. 14. Having answered the issue regarding maintainability in favour of the appellant, question of considering the substantial question of law formulated on 16.06.2008 would not arise. 15. In view of the discussions made herein above, following order is passed:- ORDER (i) The appeals are hereby allowed; (ii) The order and award passed in WCA Nos. 110/00 and 581/00 on 20.10.2004 are hereby set aside and claim petitions are dismissed; (iii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant/insurer; (iv) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Labour Commissioner, who in turn shall issue necessary directions to the Commissioners for Workmen’s Compensation so as to comply with the provisions of the Act both in letter and spirit; (v) No order as to costs;