ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The respondent Insurance Company is represented by Mr. Suyash Vyas, learned counsel. 3. The challenge here is to the order dated 25.08.2022 in the FAO No. 18 of 2022 of the High Court of Orissa whereunder, the Court opined that the claim filed by the appellant under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the “Act”) is barred by limitation, under Section 10 of the Act. But the said issue has not been dealt with by the Commissioner in his judgment dated 07.12.2021, while granting relief to the appellant. Accordingly, the claim application was held to be barred by limitation and not maintainable and the appeal of the insurance company stood allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant however refers to the last proviso to Section 10 of the Act to point out that although claim for compensation is required to be filed within two years of the accident, the Commissioner has ample power to decide any claim for compensation notwithstanding the fact that the claim, as required under Section 10(1), was not preferred within the stipulated time. 5. As can be noticed, the appellant was an auto-rickshaw driver and his vehicle met with the accident on 05.10.2010. The autodriver, aged about 34 years, suffered multiple injuries and he filed the claim for compensation which was registered as E.C. Case No. 37-D/2014. No limitation objection was raised at the time when claim was filed and therefore the appellant had no occasion to explain the delayed preference of the claim. The Commissioner also therefore had no occasion to consider any possible explanation, in order to invoke his powers, as provided in the proviso to Section 10 of the Act. 6. As the High Court had set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, only on the ground of the claim having been filed beyond the period of limitation, we are of the view that the issue as to whether the delayed filing can be condoned, is an aspect, which needs to be considered by the Commissioner by affording opportunity to the claimant. With the conclusion that was reached by the High Court, the matter should have been remanded back to the original forum instead of setting aside the Award, on the ground of limitation. 7. With the conclusion that was reached by the High Court, the matter should have been remanded back to the original forum instead of setting aside the Award, on the ground of limitation. 7. In view of the foregoing, we allow this appeal by setting aside the order dated 25.08.2022 in the FAO No. 18 of 2022. The order of the Commissioner, Employees Compensation is also set aside with further direction to the original authority to first decide whether the claimant is entitled to condonation of the period of limitation. For this purpose, application for condonation is permitted to be filed by the claimant within eight weeks from today and objection thereto, if any, is permitted to be filed by the insurance company within four weeks thereafter. However, all contentions are kept open. The Commissioner should then decide the matter on merit. It is ordered accordingly.