argued that the deceased was working as a technician with Preet Enterprises from where the respondent bought the Air conditioner, it was also argued that the actual owners of the premises from whom the Respondent rented the space haven't been made party to this petition. Lastly it is argued that the present petition is time barred under the Act. On the other hand the Claimants have denied the allegations/contentions raised by the Respondent. The Respondent in their written arguments while emphasizing that the word "employment” used in section 3 of the Act is with specific purpose and the court is required to give the correct meaning to the said word as held in “ Lata Ramchandar Ubale Vs. Ramchandra Shankar Ubale and another [2012 (4) Mh. L.J. 747]” The said judgment unfortunately is not applicable in the present-case as the witness of the respondent i.e. Vishnu Kumar G, had categorically admitted in is cross that “ on 30.05.2012, deceased Sh. Tilak Raj and Sh. Shiv Kumar Ram were working for the company as they were installing the ACs in the company .” It was also admitted by the same witness that " it is correct that the entire area was taken on lease by the Respondent Company was 'under control and supervision of the Respondent Company ." The witness also rightly mentioned that the “ it is correct that on 30.05.2012, Sh Tilak Raj died in the office premises of the Respondent Company ”. The Respondent while relying on another Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Mohd. Zulfikar Ali Vs. Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act & Ors.” have argued that this Court shouldn‟t have entertained the present claim petition as the same is time barred as per Section 10(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, unfortunately, the above stated Judgment too cannot be relied on as the Claimants had filed an application for condonation of delay on 16.02.2017 which was heard and decided accordingly. Furthermore, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in M/S Adecco India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shriram & Anr. FAO No. 461/2016 wherein the court has dealt the a similar defence taken by the company, the relevant para is reproduced here in; “ Counsel for the appellant argued that the claim petition was time barred, and therefore should have been dismissed. However, it is noted that though this defence was raised in the written statement, but the appellant did not choose to get any issue framed on the same. Obviously, the appellant is therefore deemed to have abandoned its plea of limitation. In case the appellant was of the opinion that the Employee's Compensation Commissioner ought to have framed an issue because it was pressing the issue of limitation, then after the issues were framed, appellant should have moved an application for framing of issue with respect to issue of limitation and admittedly this was not done. Therefore, appellant cannot now
