A workman whose compensation claim for a hand injury was rejected sought condonation of an 826-day delay in filing an appeal, blaming his earlier counsel. The court found the explanation insufficient and dismissed the application, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07.11.2025
versus
ANIL KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bijay Kumar and Mr. Ashok Nigam, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
CM APPL. 40797/2018
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 826 days in filing the
appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act). The appeal has been preferred challenging Annexure A-1 order dated 22.04.2016 of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, West and New Delhi, in CEC/1/WD/102/14/305-
306, whereby the appellant/claimant’s claim for compensation on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAJ BA LA FAO 464/2018 Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:39:22
Page 1 of 6
account of an injury alleged to have been sustained during the course of employment was rejected.
2.1. The appellant/claimant, on 22.09.2014, filed a claim
petition before the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, New
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAJ BA LA FAO 464/2018 Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:39:22
Page 2 of 6
Delhi, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained. The claim was, however, dismissed on the ground that there was no employer– employee relationship between the appellant/claimant and the respondent.
2.2. The allegation in the application is that the appellant, an illiterate person, was unaware of the fact that his claim petition had been dismissed on 22.04.2016. The counsel earlier engaged by him was not regular in appearing before the Court. The appellant was never given a copy of the claim petition. Whenever the appellant/claimant used to inquire regarding the status of the claim petition, the counsel kept telling him that no decision had been taken on the same.
2.3. It is further alleged that the appellant sought the help of
the present counsel to inquire about the crime registered. The counsel made necessary inquiries and informed him that his claim was dismissed on 22.04.2016. Thereafter, he applied for a certified copy of the impugned Order by the end of March 2018, which was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAJ BA LA FAO 464/2018 Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:39:22
Page 3 of 6
ready on 10.04.2018. However, the same was supplied to him only by the middle of May 2018.
2.4. In July 2018, the appellant/claimant, through his present
counsel, filed a writ petition bearing diary number 308072/2018, challenging Annexure A-1. A copy of the filing details of the said writ petition has been attached to the application. However, the Registry raised an objection stating that a writ petition was not maintainable. Thereafter, the defects were rectified by converting the writ petition into an appeal as provided under Section 30 of the Act, along with the present application.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAJ BA LA FAO 464/2018 Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:39:22
Page 4 of 6
appellant/claimant that, as the latter is an illiterate person and as the incident is established by registering of the crime, a lenient view
may be taken and the delay be condoned. The submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, who submits that
no cogent reasons are made out to condone the long delay.
appeal has been filed only on 29.09.2018, which is more than two after the of the Order. The years passing impugned appellant/claimant has put the entire blame on the counsel earlier engaged by him for the delay in filing the appeal. It is alleged that he had been in constant touch with the counsel. The then counsel is alleged to have repeatedly assured him that the claim was pending consideration before the authority concerned. He does not specify
the date on which he is stated to have come to know of the impugned order. He has no case that, after he came to know of the dismissal, he had contacted his earlier counsel and sought an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAJ BA LA FAO 464/2018 Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:39:22
Page 5 of 6
explanation as to why he had not been informed of the dismissal as soon as the order was passed. In the application itself, he has a case that the counsel earlier engaged by him was not regular in appearing before the court. If he was well aware of the fact that the counsel concerned was not diligent in prosecuting the matter, it is beyond my comprehension as to why the services of the said counsel were continued by the appellant. The reasons cited for the condonation of delay are therefore found insufficient.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 7, 2025/mj
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAJ BA LA FAO 464/2018 Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:39:22
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Should the 826-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act be condoned?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mukesh Kumar
Anil Kumar
Chandrasekharan Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
