JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, husband of his client was working as security guard under opposite party no.4. While at his post on 19th May, 2001, he met with cycle accident, which led to paralysis. The victim ultimately died on 19th July, 2011. In the meantime, the son had applied for benefits from the Corporation, who by its letter dated 17th December, 2009 said that his father was suffering from the disease process, having no connection with employment injury alleged to have occurred on 19th May, 2001. He submits, employer of his client's husband informed the Corporation by letter dated 18th March, 2009. In it was clearly stated that it was a cycle accident. He submits, there be direction upon the Corporation to pay the benefits to his client. 2. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Corporation. He submits, information on accident is to given to his client within one year of occurrence. The accident was alleged to have happened on 19th May, 2001 and information of it given by opposite party no.4, as late as by letter dated 18th March, 2009. He points out two apparent discrepancies between enclosing letter saying that husband of petitioner while on duty post fell sick on 19th May, 2001 at 2.00 p.m. while enclosed the accident report from employer says under entry-25(a) that it was a cycle accident. He relies on his client's aforesaid letter dated 17th December, 2009 regarding suffering being on account of disease process having no connection with employment injury. He submits further, disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition. At best petitioner may approach the insurance Court under section 75(e) in Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 3. Record shows that there has been valid of service on opposite party no.4, who goes unrepresented. 4. There are gaps on questions of fact. It is not known as, inter alia, to whether petitioner rejoined his duties after 19th May, 2001 or continued to suffer. This is to be ascertained as a relevant fact because opinion of the doctor as on 29th June, 2001 was that petitioner's husband was fit to resume his duties. This can only be done by the insurance Court. 5. Petitioner may approach the insurance Court invoking clause-(e) in section 75. This is to be ascertained as a relevant fact because opinion of the doctor as on 29th June, 2001 was that petitioner's husband was fit to resume his duties. This can only be done by the insurance Court. 5. Petitioner may approach the insurance Court invoking clause-(e) in section 75. In event of such approach the insurance Court will adjudicate on the claim upon establishing above and other questions of fact, from the Corporation as well as the employer. So far as limitation provided by section 77 is concerned, petitioner has urged cause of action arisen for the writ petition based on rejection letter dated 17th December, 2009. The Corporation in issuing said letter did not say that the claim was brought to it, out of time. That being so, the writ petition was filed on 25th October, 2011. It is being dealt with today i.e. 9th January, 2023. Petitioner, if is to avail remedy under section 75(e) must forthwith apply to obtain exclusion of time provided by section 14 in Limitation Act, 1963. 6. The writ petition is disposed of as above.