WRIT PETITION 23675 of 2018 on 29 December 2017

1. Kurmapu Someswara Rao, s/o Suryanarayana, aged about 35 yearsresiding at Door No. 54-10-30 Relli village, Isuka Thota Visakhapatnamresiding at Door No. 54-10-30 Relli village, Isuka Thota Visakhapatnam

2. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act 1923, And DeputyCommissioner of Labour VisakhapatnamCommissioner of Labour Visakhapatnam

...Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularlyoneinthenatureof Writof mandamusdeclaringtheorderof2ndrespondent passedin W.C.M.P.No.20of 2016dated29.12.2017,incondoning the delay of 1406 days in filing the W.C. as illegal arbitrary adwithout jurisdiction.

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to grant stay all further proceedings in WC No. 2 of 2016 on thefile of Hon'ble Court of Deputy Commissioner of Labour And AuthorityUnder the workmen Compensation Act at Visakhapatnam pending disposalof writ petition.

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

Kurmapu Someswara Rao, s/o Suryanarayana, aged about 35 yearsresiding at Door No. 54-10-30 Relli village, Isuka Thota Visakhapatnam

AND

...Petitioner

1. The Depot Manager APSRTC, Visakhapatnam depot Visakhapatnam

2. The Chairman-um-ManagingDirector APSRTC,PanditNehruBuscomplex Vijayawada.complex Vijayawada.

3. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act 1923, And Deputy 1923, And DeputyCommissioner of Labour Visakhapatnam

...Respondents

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courtmay bepleased to Vacate the Interim Stay orders passed in W.P .No 23675/ 2018Dt. 12-07-2018.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. S V RAMANA

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI S M SUBHAN

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR

The Court made the following order:

APHC010501552018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPAWRIT PETITION NO: 23675/2018

Between:

The Depot Manager Apsrtc, and Others...PETITIONER(S)

AND

Kurmapu Someswara Rao and Others...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. S VRAMANA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR LABOUR (AP)

2. S M SUBHAN

The Court made the following:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:

.to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of mandamus declaring the order of 2nd respondent passedin W.C.M.P.No. 20 of 2016 dated 29.12.2017 in condoning the delay of1406 days in filing the .WC as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction andpass..."

2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTCfor the Petitioners. None represented for the respondents.

3. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the respondentNo.1worked as Driver in APSRTC, met with an accident. He lost his legin theaccident and a criminal case has been lodged against him and it was ended inacquittal. The respondent No.1 approached the authorities under WorkmanCompensation Act by filing a petition seeking compensation, with a delay of1406 days. The delay was condoned vide impugned Order without assigningvalid reasons. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that such a hugedelay cannot besimply condonedwithout assigninganyreasons.ThePetitioners’ corporation has paid the benefits to the Respondent No.1as perthe Scheme formulated. Heis also provided with alternate employmentas“Shramik”. Learned Authority ought not have condoned the delay of 1406days. Learned Standing Counsel finally prays to allow[the][ Petition.]

4. Consideringthe submissions made and afair lookat thematerialplaced on record,it is a case where the 1®* respondent while discharging hisduties met with an accident. He suffered crush injury to his right leg and it wasamputated resultingin 80% disability. The Criminal case registered againsthim wasalso endedinacquittal. TherespondentNo.1approached theCommissioner for Employee Compensation seeking compensationwithadelay of 1406 days. Learned Commissioner for Employee Compensation hasrightly considered the case of the respondent No.1[and][ has][ taken][ view][ that][ in]order to dispose of the case on merits,it is necessary to condone the delay.placed on record,it is a case where the 1®* respondent while discharging hisduties met with an accident. He suffered crush injury to his right leg and it wasamputated resultingin 80% disability. The Criminal case registered againsthim wasalso endedinacquittal. TherespondentNo.1approached theCommissioner for Employee Compensation seeking compensationwithadelay of 1406 days. Learned Commissioner for Employee Compensation hasrightly considered the case of the respondent No.1[and][ has][ taken][ view][ that][ in]order to dispose of the case on merits,it is necessary to condone the delay.

Accordingly, the impugned order was passed by condoning the delay of 1406days in preferring the petition before the Authority.It is a settled principle oflaw while exercising discretion in condoning delay, aliberal, pragmatic andjustice-oriented approach has to be preferred over a rigid one. Hence, thisCourt does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned Order.

7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

To,

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA F^JUASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTOI^OFFICER

1One CC toSri. S V Ramana Advocate [OPUC]

2. One OOto Sri.Subhan Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two C?Cs*tO GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

4. Threfe^GD Coptes

GSC

HIGH COURTDATED:25/03/2025

ORDERWP.No.23675of 2018

DISMISSING THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS

<*ii3jUN?rc>5gCoCyrrww ^uon.