JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):-- 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘the Act’) impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 1.6.2006 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent herein and who is the widow of the deceased employee Sh. Ram Prasad. 2. The facts of the case are that the deceased was employed by the appellant as an electrician. He was 46 years as on 6.2.1997, the date of the accident. On 6.2.1997, he was doing electrical work in the Air Force Station as per instructions from the superiors when he fell down from the stairs on which he was working and suffered fatal injuries. Sh. Ram Prasad was admitted to Batra Hospital, New Delhi where he died on the same day. In the police station, DD entry nos.17 and 24 dated 6.2.1997 were recorded with respect to the accident. 3. The appellant contested the case and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the ground of the same being time barred, and also that the deceased Ram Prasad was under the influence of liquor/drugs and consequently, there is no liability of the respondent as per Section 3(1)(b)(i) of the Act. 4. Since there was a delay in filing the claim petition inasmuch as, accident happened on 6.2.1997, and the claim petition was filed in October 2005, i.e after a delay of 8 years, respondent filed an application seeking condonation of delay in terms of fifth proviso to Section 10(1). Condonation of delay was sought on the ground that respondent had sought compassionate employment of her son, and which was ultimately denied in 2003 and thereafter within two years (two years being the period of limitation under Section 10 of the Act) the claim petition was filed. 5. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it may be noted that to the application filed for condonation of delay, the appellant filed no reply. Therefore, in a way, the application was really uncontested. In any case, even when this averment was made in the claim petition by the respondent that delay was on account of having applied for compassionate appointment of her son, and which when rejected resulted in filing the claim petition under the Act, this aspect stands admitted in the reply to para-10 of the claim petition in the written statement. In any case, even when this averment was made in the claim petition by the respondent that delay was on account of having applied for compassionate appointment of her son, and which when rejected resulted in filing the claim petition under the Act, this aspect stands admitted in the reply to para-10 of the claim petition in the written statement. In the peculiar facts of this case therefore in my opinion, there were sufficient reasons for condoning of delay and accordingly, I do not find any substantial question of law arising under Section 30 of the Act for setting aside the finding and conclusion of fact with respect to condonation of delay. 6. The second argument which is urged before this Court is that appellant is not liable because the employee was under the influence of drinks/drugs. No doubt, such an averment is made in the written statement, however, when we see the DD entry which is lodged with respect to the incident, Ex.PW1/5, it is seen that one of the employees of the appellant namely Sh. Sunil Kaur, Superintendant MES himself made statement that the deceased died on account of falling from the stairs while doing electrical work and there is no statement in the DD entry that the deceased Ram Prasad was under the influence of drinks/drugs. Therefore appellant has not proved on record its defence of the deceased employee being under the influence of drinks/drugs and on the contrary there is an admission of the employee/appellant that the deceased died on account of a fall from the stairs while doing electrical work. 7. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for this appeal to be entertained under Section 30, and which is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.