JUDGMENT : 1. The order passed by the 1st respondent in W.C.I.A.No.212 of 2009 dated 04.03.2013 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The 4th respondent/Claimant, preferred an application seeking compensation under the Employees Compensation Act before the 1st respondent. There was a delay in filing the application under the Act. The delay of 1296 days was considered by the 1st respondent and an order was passed on 04.03.2013, condoning the delay and the original petition filed in No.46 of 2013 was taken on file for the purpose of enquiry. Challenging the said order of condoning the delay, the present writ petition is filed by the management. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is of an opinion that such a huge delay ought not to have been condoned by the 1st respondent in view of the fact that the 4th respondent was not vigilant in filing the application within a time limit prescribed under the provisions of the Act itself. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent states that the reason for delay was explained before the 1st respondent and considering the reasons, the order was passed, condoning the delay. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the order passed by the 1st respondent, condoning the delay and proceeded with the main application seeking compensation. 5. This Court is of an opinion that the Employees Compensation Act is a labour welfare legislation and providing compensation for the injured labourers during the course of employment. Thus, the benefit of such a welfare legislation cannot be denied to the labourers on technical grounds. The welfare legislations are to be interpreted pragmatically, more specifically, considering the facts and circumstances, the labourers, who are illiterates in some cases, may not be aware of the legal implications and the limitations prescribed under the statutes. Therefore, such circumstances and the factors are to be considered, while taking a decision and more specifically, in the application relating to condoning the delay in filing applications. Thus, these kind of matters cannot be decided merely on technical grounds, more specifically, for rejection. 6. Taking a view that the condone delay applications are to be ordered liberally in respect of such labourers, who are seeking compensation under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Thus, these kind of matters cannot be decided merely on technical grounds, more specifically, for rejection. 6. Taking a view that the condone delay applications are to be ordered liberally in respect of such labourers, who are seeking compensation under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. In the present case on hand, the 4th respondent was a labourer, working in a quary operations. During the course of employment, he sustained injuries. Based on the sustained injuries, an application was preferred, seeking compensation. Therefore, the right of the labourer to receive just and adequate compensation under the provisions of the Act cannot be denied at all. 7. In this view of the matter, the condonation of delay ordered by the 1st respondent is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity as such. The parties are directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the 1st respondent for the purpose of arriving a final decision in this matter. The 1st respondent is directed to proceed with the main application as early as possible and without causing any undue delay and by providing an opportunity to all the parties concerned. 8. With these directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.