Judgment The employer-respondent is in appeal under Section 30(1)(a) of Workmen Compensation Act 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of brevity) questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed in WCA/B2/FC/CR/No.24/2000 passed by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation. Sub-Division II. Bangalore-29 dated 30-4-2002 whereunder the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased employee has been allowed in part. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under and parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. 2.1. The wife and children of one Sri Amalanathan filed a claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation on account of death of Sri. Amalanathan on 26-6-1996 at the work spot at around 2.45 p.m. who is said to have died due to electric shock at the factory owned by respondent/employer, it was contended that deceased Amalanathan was working as a mechanic with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “employer”) on a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-. The said claim petition was presented on 20-03-2000. It was contended that employer had paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards cremation charges and had made a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 10,000/- each in the name of the children of the deceased with the State Bank of Mysore in investment Deposit Scheme and deceased being the only bread earner of the family having expired claimants had become destitutes and inspite of assurance given by the employer that further compensation would be given, same having not been paid, claim petition is said have been filed on 20-3-2000. Since there was a delay in filing the claim petition, an interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed which was accompanied by the affidavit of the wife of the deceased employees. 2.2. On service of notice the employer appeared and filed statement of objections. The contents of the averment made in the claim petition came to be denied in part. It was contended that deceased and the proprietor of the respondent firm were good friends and there was no relationship of employer and employee and since the deceased was addicted to alcohol, tobacoo etc., he was always complaining of serious ill-health and had developed chest pain and bronchitis and on account of said habits he died of heart attack. It was contended that deceased and the proprietor of the respondent firm were good friends and there was no relationship of employer and employee and since the deceased was addicted to alcohol, tobacoo etc., he was always complaining of serious ill-health and had developed chest pain and bronchitis and on account of said habits he died of heart attack. It was also denied that he died during the course of employment or at the work spot. However, it was admitted in the statement of objections that on account of the friendship between the proprietor of respondent firm and the deceased a residential accommodation had been provided on a nominal rent of Rs.500/- within the precincts of the Factory. It is also admitted that payment of rent as contended by the claimants had been paid by deceased. All other allegations made in the objection statement came to be denied. 2.3. On the basis of the rival contentions raised by the parties the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation framed the following issues for his determination: (i) Whether the claimant proves that they are dependants of deceased employee as defined under the Workmen Compensation Act.? (ii) Whether the applicants prove that deceased was an employee under the respondent and he died during the and in the course of the employment.? (iii) Whether the claimants prove as to the age of the deceased and the monthly income drawn by the deceased at the time of accident? (iv) To what award and to what interest the claimants are entitled to? (v) What order.? 2.4. Claimants in support of their claim examined the wife of the deceased as C.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.26. The proprietor of respondent firm Mr. M. Sundaram got himself examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation by his judgment and award dated 30-04-2002 allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,43,747.70 with interest at 12% p.a. payable. It is this judgment and award which is assailed in the present appeal by the employer. 3. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation by his judgment and award dated 30-04-2002 allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,43,747.70 with interest at 12% p.a. payable. It is this judgment and award which is assailed in the present appeal by the employer. 3. This appeal being of the year 2002 and the accident in question being of the year 1996 and the records having been secured by consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing after framing the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether the claim petition filed by the claimants was barred limitation? (ii) Whether the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation holding that there existed employer and employee relationship is in consonance with the evidence placed by the parties? 4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties namely Sri. Nagarajappa appearing for Appellant/employer and Sri. K.R. Muralikrishna appearing for respondents/claimants. 5. It is the contention of Sri Nagarajappa that there has been delay in filing the claim petition and the delay having not been properly explained the order assailed in this appeal also does not spell out the reasons as to why delay has been condoned and for what reasons and hence he submits that on this short ground of application itself being belated same is liable to be dismissed. He would also submit that there was no relationship of employer and employee and inspite of opportunity having been sought for by the employer by filing an application on 23-10-2001 to recall R.W.1 to tender evidence in this regard having not been considered, the order in question is opposed to the principles of natural justice and accordingly he seeks for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. He would also submit that death was not due to and in the course of employment and arising out of the employment and as such judgment and award is liable to be set aside. He would also submit that death was not due to and in the course of employment and arising out of the employment and as such judgment and award is liable to be set aside. He would draw the attention of the Court to Section 10-B of Workmen’s Compensation Act read with Rule 11 of the Workmen Compensation Rules, whereunder there is no report made available on record reporting the death due to fatal accident and as such it has to be construed that there is no accident at all and thus claim petition ought not to have been entertained by Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. On these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the claim petition and prays for allowing of the appeal. In support of the submission regarding death not occurring in the course of employment or arising out of employment he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 513 . 6. Per contra Sri Murali Krishna supports the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and submits that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity had been given is incorrect as reflected from the records. He would contend that several opportunities had been given and inspite of witness-P.W.1 having been cross-examined after recalling twice and R.W.I also having tendered his evidence cannot now turn around and contend and that there is lack of opportunity and prays for dismissal of the appeal. He would elaborate his submission by contending that if the claim of the respondent employer is to be accepted that deceased employee was a close friend and not an employee under him he would not have pleaded his ignorance about the details of his family or where he was working and contends this itself clearly go to show that appellant/employer was attempting to hush-up the accident itself. He would also submit that one another factor to show that deceased was an employee is the fact that respondent employer had provided quarters inside the factory premises and was collecting rent from the deceased employee. He would also submit that one another factor to show that deceased was an employee is the fact that respondent employer had provided quarters inside the factory premises and was collecting rent from the deceased employee. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the Cross-examination of R.W.1 whereunder he admits that respondents herein namely the wife and children of the deceased were residing in the said premises at the time of demise of the deceased employee and they had continued to reside therein even after his demise and forcible possession was taken through police is also admitted by R.W.1 which according to Mr. Murali Krishna would establish the fact that deceased was an employee under the respondent. He would also draw the attention of the Court that under Ex.P.11 namely a slip calculating the salary would depict that deceased was under employment with the respondent and the hand writing therein is admitted by R.W.1 itself. On these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the appeal and prays for confirming of the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and this Court having formulated substantial questions of law as enumerated herein above for consideration same are being answered. 8. Before delving upon the facts of the case or the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, it would be of benefit to extract the object and reasons behind with which the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 a social beneficial Legislation took its birth. It reads as under: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923 “The general principles of Workmen’s compensation command almost universal acceptance, and India is now nearly alone among civilized countries in being without legislation embodying those principles. For a number of years the more generous employers have been in the habit of giving compensation voluntarily, but this practice is by no means general. The growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, along with the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible from hardship arising from accidents.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 9. The growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, along with the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible from hardship arising from accidents.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 9. It is also envisaged in the statement of objects and reasons that compensation should ordinarily be given to workmen who sustain personal injury by accident arising out of and during the course of employment. Keeping in view this object in mind Legislature though fit to bring about the said legislation namely Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, keeping the object underlying behind the said enactment substantial questions of law formulated in the present appeal are being examined and answered. 10. Re: Question No.1: In so far as the delay that has been condoned by Commissioner while entertaining the appeal is one of the prime ground on which dismissal of the claim petition, is sought for. Hence, same is being examined by this Court. It is seen that along with the claim petition an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on 20-03-2000. Under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act namely under Section 10(1)(a) proviso, the Commissioner is empowered to adjudicate a claim petition when same is not filed within a period of 2 years if sufficient cause is shown by the claimant that claim petition could not be filed within the prescribed period. In the instant case an application for condonation of delay was supported by an affidavit of the wife of the deceased. It is contended therein that on account of the death of the bread earner of the family (husband) she was left with two minor children to look after and was under several mental shock. She has also stated in her affidavit that on account of the assurance given by the employer further compensation would be paid to the matter was not pursued with fond hope and it was also on account of mental agony she was put into she was not able to file the claim petition. To the said application the employer has filed objection and contended that there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay. To the said application the employer has filed objection and contended that there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay. On considering rival contentions the Commissioner by order dated 8-8-2000 has condoned the delay as seen from the order sheet. In fact having assigned the reasons it is also stated therein that in the final order, further reasons by way of amplification would be furnished and it is so found in the order dated 30-4-2002 at internal page 9 of judgment and award whereunder Commissioner having considered the dicta laid down by this Court as well as other High Courts has come to a conclusion that in the interest of doing substantial social justice to the parties delay in filing the application should be condoned and the same has been condoned. 11. Keeping the object with which the present enactment i.e., Workmen Compensation Act has been enacted and also considering the reasons assigned in the affidavit supporting the application as well as the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that delay ought not to have been condoned and I hereby confirm the order passed on 8-8-2000 as also the finding given in the final order dated 30-04-2002 condoining the delay and the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is hereby rejected. Accordingly question No.1 is answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. 12. Re: Question No.2: It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no “employer” and “employee” relationship. It is rather surprising that such contention has been taken by the appellant employer in spite of having filed the statement of objections and admitting a part of claim petition. In view of the admission made by respondent in the objection statement a part of the claim, it would be benefit to extract such statement made by the respondent in paragraph 6 of the statement of objections which reads: “Paragraph 6: It is true that the deceased was survived by the applicants. The opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- on the day of death at the residence, Rs.8000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards the educational expenses. The deceased was due of a sum of Rs.6,000/- out of Rs.10,000/- which he had procured as loan. The opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- on the day of death at the residence, Rs.8000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards the educational expenses. The deceased was due of a sum of Rs.6,000/- out of Rs.10,000/- which he had procured as loan. Since the deceased was a friend of the proprietor of opposite party, the deceased was accommodated in a house belonging to the proprietor on a nominal rent of Rs. 500/-per month and the deceased was due of the rent for 7 months preceding his death. Apart from this the opposite party has deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the name of each of minor children.” 13. At this juncture itself, it would be necessary to quote admission of R.W.1 dated 26-6-2001 wherein he admits the contents and handwriting in Ex.P.11. Ex.P.11 came to be produced by the claimants to contend that deceased was drawing salary from the respondent and whenever there were deductions to be made towards the advance paid, it was being deducted from the monthly salary and such deductions were noted down in the owner hand writing of employer and one such slip came to be produced by the claimant which was Ex.P.11. When this was confronted to the witnesses in the cross-examination namely the employer himself who is the author of Ex.P.11, he has admitted that it is in his handwriting. In his own words his admission reads as under: “KANADAM” When there is specific admission of witness about his handwriting in Ex.P.11, it is for the said witness to explain as to why it should not be accepted and in the absence of such explanation it has to be accepted as true and correct. This admission clearly go to show that R.W.1 had employer deceased Sri. Amalanathan in his factory and was praying salary. The salary covers retained by the deceased and produced by the claimant at Ex.P.9 (55 covers) and Ex.P.10 are not denied by the employer R.W.1. On the other hand R.W. 1 has admitted that handwriting as observed hereinabove. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no relationship of employer and employee cannot be accepted and it is hereby rejected. 14. On the other hand R.W. 1 has admitted that handwriting as observed hereinabove. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no relationship of employer and employee cannot be accepted and it is hereby rejected. 14. In so far as the contention that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and appellant employer has not been given full opportunity to defend his aside before the Commissioner is examined with reference to the records. Sri. Nagarajappa, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to the notice of the Court about an application having been filed by employer under Order 18 Rule 17A r/w Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking recall of R.W.1 for Chief examination which was filed on 23-10-2001 and contends that reason assigned by the Commissioner for dismissal of the same on 27-10-2001 is without substance and there is no specific reasons assigned as to why said application is being rejected. The Commissioner while dismissing the application has taken note of the fact of earlier proceedings and recorded the same in the order sheet. The appellants have not furnished the entire order sheet along with this appeal memorandum and what has been produced at pages 23 to 26 is only a part. Hence, this Court has perused the entire order sheet as found in the records and has found that application which was brought to the notice of this Court by Sri. Nagarajappa learned Counsel is not the first application. This was the 4th application which has been filed. The earlier applications that were filed on 24-04-2001, 14-06-2001 and 26-06-2001 and on two occasions the applications have been allowed and R.W.1 has been recalled for chief-examination and after such recall R.W.1 has tendered his examination in chief. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is violation of principles of natural justice is bereft of facts and is liable to be rejected. 15. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is violation of principles of natural justice is bereft of facts and is liable to be rejected. 15. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that deceased did not expire during the course of the employment is to be examined with circumspection for the reason that claimants have pleaded that on account of the situation in which the claimants were placed and on account of the assurance given by the employer that he would rehabilitate the claimants by providing with adequate compensation they did not pursue the matter with any other authorities, deserves to be accepted for the reason namely any employer would be in a domineering position and as such when a widow of deceased employee with two minor children is placed in such a situation would be a gullible prey to such assurance and this is one such instance which fact cannot be lost sight of by this Court. At this juncture it would be necessary to extract the admission of R.W.1 whereunder he admits that cremation of the deceased Amalanathan was done under his supervision and his admission in his own words reads as under: “KANADAM” 16. Even the death certificate from the Christian Cemetery is obtained by R.W.1. Thus, to now contend that Ex.R-1 which is the cremation certificate issued by the Cemetery depict that he died of heart attack is based on the statement provided by the said witness himself. In view of this, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that deceased did not die during the course of the employment cannot be accepted. Even otherwise when it is the contention of the appellant that deceased was a stranger to the factory what made R.W.1 to give compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each to children of deceased is not forthcoming and it belies his own claim. That apart the fact that deceased was living in one of the residential building belonging to employer having been admitted by R.W. 1 and that he was collecting rent from deceased employee also belies the plea now put forward that the deceased did not die during the course of employment. 17. That apart the fact that deceased was living in one of the residential building belonging to employer having been admitted by R.W. 1 and that he was collecting rent from deceased employee also belies the plea now put forward that the deceased did not die during the course of employment. 17. In so far as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was with reference to whether the deceased died on account of the work discharged by him and in the absence of any evidence to the said effect the conclusion that has to be drawn was that claimants had failed to disprove that fact that the deceased died due to stress and strain of the working condition, Perusal of entire evidence and particularly cross-examination of R.W.1 reveals that employer has made all out efforts to conceal the accident in question itself by not reporting to authorities. This I say so because the document produced which is at Ex.P.2 to P.10 as also Ex.P.11 would reveal that the deceased was an employee under the respondent. If the deceased was a stranger and there was no relationship of employer and employee, there was no reason as to why the respondent has made Fixed Deposit of Rs.10,000/- each in the name of minor children of the deceased employee. When the employer has gone to the extent of depositing the amount in the names of minor children, it is not possible to infer that said employer would extend his benevolence that too on a stranger. On this ground also this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that deceased did not die during the course of the employment. Even otherwise the fact remains that Section 10-B requires mandatory notice to be field before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation reporting fatal accidents by filing Form EE as per Rule 11 of Workmen Compensation Rules had not been filed. Records in the instant case discloses that employer has ensured that such report is not filed, obviously to absolve himself from paying any compensation that would become payable in accordance with law. Records in the instant case discloses that employer has ensured that such report is not filed, obviously to absolve himself from paying any compensation that would become payable in accordance with law. This itself goes to show that employer was attempting to suppress the truth before the Commissioner and the Commissioner on appreciation of entire evidence both oral and documentary has come to a conclusion that death was in the course of employment and arising out of employment namely due to electric shock. In view of these facts question No.2 formulated hereinabove is to be answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. 18. In view of the above discussion the following Order is passed: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed by answering the substantial questions of law against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. (ii) The judgment and award passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Bangalore in WCA/B2/FC/CR/No.24/2000 dated 30/04/2002 is hereby affirmed. (iii) The appellants are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the respondents towards costs of this appeal. (iv) The Registry is directed to release the amount as ordered by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation in his award dated 30-04-2002 and as apportioned thereunder which has been deposited by the appellant in this appeal within 10 days from today and no proper identification of the parties. (v) The appellant is directed to deposit the interest as ordered by the Commissioner within a period of four weeks subject to filing of an undertaking affidavit to the said effect is filed on or before 25-08-2010 failing which respondent would be entitled to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law to recover the amounts due as per award. (vi) List this matter for further orders on 25-08-2010.