JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The instant Appeal is directed against the verdict rendered on 22.3.2010 by the learned Commissioner, for Employee''s Compensation, Chachyot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., while his exercising jurisdiction under the Employee''s Compensation Act, whereby the learned Commissioner assessed compensation comprised in a sum of Rs. 9,15,222/- vis-a-vis the respondent herein. Being aggrieved therefrom, the employer has instituted the instant Appeal before this Court. 2. During the course of arguments before this Court, this Court deemed it fit to formulate the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law, for hence an adjudication being pronounced thereon:- 1. Whether the delay in filing the claim Petition has not been sought to be condoned on the basis of satisfactory, valid and legal grounds and whether in the absence of any evidence in support of application for condonation of delay, the delay could not be condoned? 2. Whether the respondent has failed to prove that the minimum wages of the deceased Roop Lal were Rs. 6,000/- per month and burden of proof of this issue was upon the respondent? 3. Whether the adverse inference could not be drawn against the appellant on the ground that he failed to produce his record in spite of the fact that the appellant has denied the relationship of workman between him and the deceased Sh. Roop Lal? 4. Whether the relevant factor has wrongly been applied by the learned Commissioner and since the respondent claimed that the deceased was working for 10 to 12 years therefore, the deceased could not be less than 30 years of age at the time of his death? 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended with vigor, that with no cogent proof being adduced in respect of the deceased holding employment under the appellant, thereupon, it was not just for the learned Commissioner to make a conclusion that the demise of the deceased workman occurred during the course of his performing employment under the appellant. 4. Post mortem certificates embodied in Ext. PW8/A to E, ascribe the cause of demise of the deceased to electric burn shock(s), arising from his contacting transmission line(s), occurring above the site of construction, whereat the appellant herein along with other co-workers, had, purportedly employed the deceased. 4. Post mortem certificates embodied in Ext. PW8/A to E, ascribe the cause of demise of the deceased to electric burn shock(s), arising from his contacting transmission line(s), occurring above the site of construction, whereat the appellant herein along with other co-workers, had, purportedly employed the deceased. The purported employer of the deceased was hence enjoined to be fastened with the apposite liability of his indemnifying the successor(s)-in-interest of the deceased, especially when he proceeded to hold construction activity at the relevant site, despite existence thereat of transmission line (s), also when for removal(s) thereof, he evidently failed to make any apposite endeavour(s) with the State Electricity Board. 5. The co-workers along with deceased in their respective depositions make, a concurrent pronouncement, of, theirs and the deceased rendering employment under the appellant. The aforesaid testifications'' rendered by the co-workers with the deceased, at the relevant site, tritely in respect of theirs along with the deceased rendering employment under the appellant, remained unshred of their efficacy, importantly, for want of the appellant adducing any cogent rebuttal evidence thereto, comprised in his adducing the relevant register of employment, with non depiction(s) therein of the name(s) of deceased or of the latter''s co-worker(s). The omission of adduction of the aforesaid best evidence, validates the apt inference derived therefrom, by the learned Commissioner, of, the deceased workman along with other co-workers standing engaged by the appellant herein, for carrying of construction activity at the relevant site, nor its tenacity is eroded. Consequently, it is to be concluded, moreso, when the employer appellant herein, has also not proceeded to make a complaint with the authorities concerned in respect of the deceased workman trespassing upon the relevant premises, that hence a subsisting contract of employment existed inter-se the deceased and the appellant, whereupon the fastening of the indemnificatory liability of compensation amount vis-a-vis the appellant, is not wanting in any legal vigor. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended with vigor that the statutory provisions embodied in Section 10, sub-section (1) of the Employee''s Compensation Act, provisions whereof stand(s) extracted hereinafter, "10. Notice and claim.- (1) 10. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended with vigor that the statutory provisions embodied in Section 10, sub-section (1) of the Employee''s Compensation Act, provisions whereof stand(s) extracted hereinafter, "10. Notice and claim.- (1) 10. Notice and claim.- (1) 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 2*(two years) of the occurrence of the accident or, in case of death, within 2*(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 (employee) was continuously absent from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease: Provided further that if (an employee) 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 (an employee) resulting from an accident which occurred on the premises of the employer, or at any place where the (employee) at the time of the accident was working under the control of the employer or of any person employed by him, and the (employee) 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 several employers or any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured (employee) 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) and 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." engraft there within, an embargo against preferment of a Petition beyond two years since the occurrence, whereas significantly with the ill-fated occurrence occurring on 2.5.2001 and the apposite claim Petition being preferred beyond three years thereafter, hence thereupon the award is rendered vitiated, with a stain of its infracting the mandate of the here above extracted statutory provisions. Further the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that though the learned Commissioner, is empowered to upon evidence displaying existence of sufficient cause precluding the disabled workman or the successor (s)-in-interest of the deceased workman, to, within time prefer a claim Petition, to thereupon proceed to condone the apposite delay, yet non existence hereat of the aforesaid apposite material, precluded the learned Commissioner to inaptly adjudge qua existence of sufficient ground(s), for, Hence the delay in the belated institution of the apposite Petition, hence warranting its being condoned. The apposite application filed before the learned Commissioner states therein the reasons which constrained the applicant to institute it before the learned Commissioner. It is specifically averred therein that the claimant is a rustic simpleton lady, who, stood repeatedly assured by the employer of her deceased son, qua his readiness to indemnify her in respect of the relevant mishap, yet all verbal assurance(s) remained unadhered to, also hers failingly making an apposite last endeavour in the first week of November, 2003. In proof of the aforesaid averments, the claimant stepped into the witness box. Her deposition embodied in her examination-in-chief remained unscathed of its tenacity, during, the ordeal of an inexorable cross-examination she stood subjected to. Also the trite factum of the respondent herein being a rustic villager remained unshred of its veracity. In sequel, it appears that the appellant did adduce tangible evidence qua hers being a rustic simpleton lady also qua the appellant making false verbal assurance(s) to her qua his readiness to indemnify her, for occurrence of demise of her son, in an accident which befell him, during the course of his rendering employment under the appellant. In sequel, it is befitting to conclude that the learned Commissioner was sagacarious, to thereupon infer that hence sufficient cause(s) aforesaid precluding her, to, earlier within the statutory period hence prefer the claim Petition. The substantial questions of law(s) are answered accordingly. 7. As borne in the Pariwar Register, the age of the deceased at the time of his demise was 23 years. The learned Commissioner had for want of documentary evidence, in respect of the actual sum(s) of wages drawn by the deceased, from, his employment under the appellant, had imputed sanctity to the testimony of the claimant qua her deceased son, drawing a sum of Rs. The learned Commissioner had for want of documentary evidence, in respect of the actual sum(s) of wages drawn by the deceased, from, his employment under the appellant, had imputed sanctity to the testimony of the claimant qua her deceased son, drawing a sum of Rs. 200/- per diem from his employer, explicitly also for want of effect(s) thereof remaining unscathed, for absence of adduction by the appellant, of best documentary evidence, comprised in the apposite receipt(s) being adduced in evidence. Further, want of adduction of the aforesaid best evidence befittingly constrained the learned Commissioner, to impute sanctity to the Oral testimony rendered by the claimant in respect of the aforesaid fact. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in absence of the aforesaid best documentary evidence, rather it was incumbent upon the learned Commissioner to compute the relevant wages derived by the deceased workman from his employment, in a figure/amount bearing consonance with the Minimum Wages Act. However, the aforesaid submission, does not Appeal to this Court, as any reliance upon the apposite provisions borne in the Minimum Wages Act, for this Court thereupon computing the minimum wages vis-a-vis the deceased workman, would occur, only upon the appellant being proceeded against ex-parte, whereupon he stood obviously precluded to adduce the apposite best evidence. Contrarily with the appellant contesting the claim Petition besides his failing to adduce best evidence in respect thereto, thereupon any attraction hereat, of, the apposite provision borne in the Minimum Wages Act, is wholly un-called for, significantly when reiteratedly the appellant contested the Petition and also led evidence upon all contentious issues, whereas, he failed to adduce the best documentary evidence in respect of the wages drawn by the deceased from his employment under him. With the appellant failing to scuttle the vigor of Oral evidence adduced in respect(s) thereof, thereupon he cannot under the garb of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, espouse that in consonance therewith this court compute wages vis-a-vis the deceased workman, especially when the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act, make pronouncements, qua defrayment of minimum wages by the employer vis-a-vis his employee, whereas they do bar the claimant(s) concerned to claim wages in excess thereof, specifically the contractual wages settled inter-se the employer and the employee, also concomitantly defrayment(s) thereof also are not barred. Substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. 8. Substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. 8. In view of the above, there is no merit in this Appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. Impugned verdict is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.