# SITARAM RAMCHARAN ETC v. M. N. NAGARSHANA & OTHERS - **Citation:** [1960] 1 S.C.R. 875 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1960 - **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 9 to 28 of 1957 - **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sitaram-ramcharan-etc-v-m-n-nagarshana-others-1837 - **Pages:** 15 ## Headnote Payment of l-V ages-Application claiming overtime wages-Bar of limitatron-Condonation of delay-Applicant, if must show sufficient cause for delay till presentation-Payment of Wages Act, r936, (4 of r936), s. r5(2), second proviso. The appellants, who were employees in the Watch and Ward Department of various textile Mills of Ahmedabad, applied for overtime wages under s. r5(2) of the Payment of Wages, r936. The applications were presented to the authority under that Act between July 22, r953, to October 6, 1953, claiming overtime wages for the period between January r95r, to December, r95r, beyond the period of six months prescribed by the first proviso to that sub-section. Their case as made in the applications for condonation of delay under the second proviso, in substance, was that they were unaware of their rights under s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, r948, until that section was for September 25 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960(1)] r959 the first time correctly interpreted in the Ruby Mills case (Vide Bombay Labour Gazette dated January 1953, Vol. 32, No. 5, Sitaram p. 521.) on May 2, 1952, as making s. 59 of the Factories Act, Rameilar•n Etc, 1948, applicable to them and that they were diligently prosecuting v. their remedy in the industrial Court which held against them. M.N. Nagarshana The authority held against the appellants and the High Court and Others refused to interfere under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The authority found that the appellants had failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay even after the decision in Ruby Mills Case. The second_proviso to s. 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, provides as follows,- " Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient canse for not making the application within such period." It was contended on behalf of the appellants in this Court that once it was proved that there was snfficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period; and in the present cases the ignorance of the true scope and effect of s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, was such a canse, the bar of limitation was wholly out of the way and the ·application could be filed at any time. Held, that the contention must fail. The second proviso to s. 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1948, was in substance similar to the provision of s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and could be availed of only by proving sufficient cause for the entire delay till the presentation of the application. Ram Narain Joshi v. Parmeswar Narain Makta, (1903) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 309, referred to. Lingley v, Thomas Firth & Sons, Ltd., (1921) l K.B. 655, Powell v. The Main Colliery Co. Ltd., 1900 A.C. 366, J. Hogan v. Gafur Ramzan, XXXV B.L.R. n43, Salamat v. A/(ent, East Indian Railway; (1938) I.L.R. 2 Cal. 52 and Kamarhatti Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, (1952) I L.L.J. 490, distinguished and held· inapplicable. The finding of the authority that the appellants had failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay subsequent to the decision in Ruby Mill• Case was a finding of fact and could not be challenged in this Court. ## Text S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTR 875 their case of benami acquisitJon of these propertiesI959 a case which is not now questioned-the fact that the K - signatures of Prahlad Rai and others on some relative edar Nath Motani documents were not their own, cannot disentitle the Prahl:~ Rai plaintiffs-appellants to a decree. The exceptions to the rule contained in the maxim were not considered Hidayatullah J. by the High Court, which proceeded entirely upon the supposition that every illegality or fraud disentitled a plaintiff to a judgment. That, however, is not the law. We accordingly hold that the appellants were entitled to a decree in their favour, and with respect, it was wrongly disallowed by the High Court. \Ve set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna, and restore those of the Subordinate Judge, Motihari. In the circumstances of this case, we think that we should make no order about costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed. SITARAM RAMCHARAN ETC. v. M. N. NAGARSHANA & OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Payment of l-V ages-Application claiming overtime wages-Bar of limitatron-Condonation of delay-Applicant, if must show sufficient cause for delay till presentation-Payment of Wages Act, r936, (4 of r936), s. r5(2), second proviso. The appellants, who were employees in the Watch and Ward Department of various textile Mills of Ahmedabad, applied for overtime wages under s. r5(2) of the Payment of Wages, r936. The applications were presented to the authority under that Act between July 22, r953, to October 6, 1953, claiming overtime wages for the period between January r95r, to December, r95r, beyond the period of six months prescribed by the first proviso to that sub-section. Their case as made in the applications for condonation of delay under the second proviso, in substance, was that they were unaware of their rights under s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, r948, until that section was for September 25 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960(1)] r959 the first time correctly interpreted in the Ruby Mills case (Vide Bombay Labour Gazette dated January 1953, Vol. 32, No. 5, Sitaram p. 521.) on May 2, 1952, as making s. 59 of the Factories Act, Rameilar•n Etc, 1948, applicable to them and that they were diligently prosecuting v. their remedy in the industrial Court which held against them. M.N. Nagarshana The authority held against the appellants and the High Court and Others refused to interfere under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The authority found that the appellants had failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay even after the decision in Ruby Mills Case. The second_proviso to s. 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, provides as follows,- " Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient canse for not making the application within such period." It was contended on behalf of the appellants in this Court that once it was proved that there was snfficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period; and in the present cases the ignorance of the true scope and effect of s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, was such a canse, the bar of limitation was wholly out of the way and the ·application could be filed at any time. Held, that the contention must fail. The second proviso to s. 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1948, was in substance similar to the provision of s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and could be availed of only by proving sufficient cause for the entire delay till the presentation of the application. Ram Narain Joshi v. Parmeswar Narain Makta, (1903) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 309, referred to. Lingley v, Thomas Firth & Sons, Ltd., (1921) l K.B. 655, Powell v. The Main Colliery Co. Ltd., 1900 A.C. 366, J. Hogan v. Gafur Ramzan, XXXV B.L.R. n43, Salamat v. A/(ent, East Indian Railway; (1938) I.L.R. 2 Cal. 52 and Kamarhatti Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, (1952) I L.L.J. 490, distinguished and held· inapplicable. The finding of the authority that the appellants had failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay subsequent to the decision in Ruby Mill• Case was a finding of fact and could not be challenged in this Court. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 9 to 28 of 1957. Appeals from the judgment and order dated June 22, 1954, of the Bombay High Court, in Sp(ll:Jial Civil Applications Nos. 285, 348, 1214 to 1221, and 2356 to 2365of1954, S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 877 N. V. Pha.dke, S. S. Shukla and Mrs. Udayaratnam, z959 for the appellants. Silaram M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, J. B. Ramcharan Etc. Mehta, .!. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshv. war Nath, for respondent No. 2 (in C. As. Nos. 9-14, M. N. dNaOgharshana 16-20 and 22-28). an 1 ers B. K. B. Naidu and J. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 15 of 1957). 1959. September 25. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-This group of consolidated Gajendragadkar J. appeals has come before this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court at Bombay, under Art. 133 of the Constitution ; the certificate shows that according to the High Court the amount of the value of the subject-matter in dispute involved in these consolidated appeals exceeds Rs. 20,000 and they raise a substantial question of law. The 385 appellants concerned in these 20 appeals are employees in the Watch & Ward Department of various textile mills in Ahmedabad. They had filed 20 applications between July 22, 1953, to October 6, 1953, before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter called the authority) and had claimed overtime wages for the period between January, 1951, to December, 1951, and June-July, 1953. These applications \Yere accompanied by another set of 20 applications in which they prayed for condonation of delay made in putting forward the claim for overtime wages under the second proviso to s. 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 4 of 1936 (here. inaner called the Act). The authority considered the case made out by the appellants for condonation of delay and held that they had failed to prove sufficient cause for not making their applications within the prescribed period. The appellants then moved the High Court at Bombay under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. These applications also failed and were dismissed; Then the appellants moved the High Court for a certificate, and a certificate was granted to Ill 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960(1)] 1959 them, It is with this certificate that they have come to this Court. Sitar am Rameharan Etc. It is necessary at first t.o set out the circumstances v. under which the appellants have made their claim for M.N. Nagarshanaovertime wages in their present applications. Section and Others 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948) which came . -k 1 into force on September 23, 1948, provides for the Ga1endragad ar . f ,. . payment o extra wages ior overtime to persons who are workers as defined by s. 2( 1) of the Act. It is common ground that the appellants are not workers under the said section ; and so they did not claim any of the benefits conferred on workers by the provisions of the Factories Act. The Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (Bombay Act 79 of 1948) came into force in the State of Bombay on January 11 1949 ; and it is not denied that the appellants are employees under s. 2(6) of the said Act. S. 70 of this Act provides for the application of s. 59 of the Factories Act to all employees working in factories like the appellants, but the words used in s. 70 are not very clear and the effect of its provisions was a matter of doubt which was finally resolved by the decision of this Court in the case of Shri B. P. Hira, Works Manager, Central Railway, Parel, Bombay, etc. v. Shri C. M. Prarlhan etc., (~) on May 8, 1959. It is because the true effect of this section was not appreciated by the appellants that the present difficulty has arisen. Not knowing that they were entitled to the benefits of the relevant provisions of the Factories Act. by virtue of s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, the representative union of the appellants raised an industrial dispute by a notice on September 20, 1949, claiming some of the amenities provided by the Factories Act (Ref. (IC) No. 192 of 1949). While delivering its award on this reference on November 25 1950, the Full Bench of the Industrial Tribunal observed that the employees did not appear to be covered by the Factories Act and on that basis it awarded to them a nine-hour day, two holidays per month and a limited provision for overtime wages. It is clear that this award proceeded on the assumption (1) (1960] I S.C.R. 3" B.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 879 that the relevant provisions of the Factories Act did z959 not apply to the appellants. On May 2, 1952, the Sitaram appellate decision delivered by the Chief Judge of the Ramcharan Etc. Court of Small Causes, in the case of Ruby Mills (1), v. however, construed s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and M. N. Nagarshana Establishments Act and held that the employees falland Others ing under the provisions of the said section were G . d-adk 1 . . . d 9 f h a;en rag ar . entitled to claim overtime wages un er s. 5 o t e Factories Act. In other words, this decision for the first time properly construed s. 70 of the Bombay Act and held that the said section in substance extended the provisions of s. 59 of the Factories Act to the employees covered by s. 70. When the appellants' union come to know about this decision it moved the Minister of Labour, Bombay, on October 30, 1952, and requested him to persuade the Ahmedabad mills to extend the benefits of the Factories Act to their Watch & Ward staff; on November 1, 1952, the union received a reply from the Minister stating that he had drawn the attention of the factories Department to the judgment in the Ruby Mills' case (1 ). Thereafter the secretary of the union requested the Chief Inspector of Factories, Ahmedabad, to enforce the above decision in Ahmedabad. Subsequent correspondence followed between the union, the factory authorities and the Mill Owners' Association, Ahmedabad. In May, 1953, the Mill Owners' Association accepted the position that the appellants were covered by the Factories Act and in .July, 1953, the appellants were for the first time paid for overtime at the rate provided under the ]factories Act. Some mills paid the overtime wages with effect from January, 1953, some from May, 1953, and some from July, 1953. In August, 1953, the secretary of the new union, which the appellants had joined in the meanwhf'le, wrote to the employers requesting them to pay overtime wages for the prior period ; and when this request did not receive a synpathctic response from the employers the present applications were tiled before the authority making a claim for overtime wages for the period already mentioned. (I) Vide Bombay Labour Gazette dated January 1953, Vol. 32, No. 5, p . .;zr. 880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(l)J '959 In their applications for the condonation of delay Sita.am the appellants alleged that they had bona fide believed Ramcharan Etc. that neither the Factories Act nor the Bombay Shops v. and Establishments Act applied to the Watch & ward M. N. Nagarshan• staff, and so they had moved the industrial court for •.nd Others redress of their grievances. The step thus taken by G . nd- dk 1 the appellants shows that in asserting their rights they a;• ••g• •• · were exercising due diligence and care. The employers conceded the position that the appellants were entitled to claim overtime· wages only in May, 1953, and then the appellants tried to negotiate with them for the payment of the overtime wages claimed in the present applications. It is on these grounds that the appellants prayed that the delay made in presenting the claim should be condoned. This claim was resisted by the employers on two grounds; it was urged hy them that the main ground alleged by the appellants for claiming condouat10n of delay amounted to a plea of ignorance of law and that ignorance of law cannot be a sufficient cause under the relevant proviso. It was also contended that no sufficient or satifactory reasons had been given by the appellants for the delay made by them in filing the present applications subsequent to May 2, 1952, when s. 70 of the Bombay Act had been authoritatively considered by the appellate court in the case of Ruby Mills (1); and so the employers argued that the appellants were not entitled to ask for condonation of delay. The authority upheld both these contentions raised by the employers. It considered the judicial decisions cited before it and held that even if the appellants were ignorant of the rights that they got under s. 70 of the Bombay Act such ignorance of law cannot be said to be a sufficient cause. It also examined the conduct of the appellant subsequent to the date of the decision in the Ruby Mills case (') and held that ihe said conduct did not justify the appellants' claim \hat they were acting bona. .fide and with due diligence in asserting (I) Vide Bombay Labour Gazette, dated January 1953, Vol. 32, No. 5, p. 521. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 881 their rights. In dealing with this latter question z959 the authority observed that the appellants did Sitaram not specify when they came to know about the Ramcharan Etc. decision in the case of Ruby Mills (1), and no satisv. factory explanation: had been given by them as to M. N. Nagarshana why, immediately after coming to know of the said and Others decision, they did not move the authority. Thee . d-dk 1 . l . d h d h a1en raga ar • authority a so examme t e correspon ence t at passed between the parties after the decision in the Ruby Mills' case (1) and found that the appellants were even then claiming the benefit of the Factories Act prospectively and not retrospectively. In the absence of any affidavit explaining the conduct of the appellants after May 2, 1952, when the Ruby Mills' case (1) was decided, the authority came to the conQlusion that the inaction of the appellants was not at all satisfactorily explained, and so no sufficient cause could be said to have been shown by them to justify the condonation of delay. As a result of these two findings the authority refused to excuse delay, and so the claim made by the appellants for overtime wages for a period beyond the prescribed period of limitation was rejected. When this decision was challenged by the appellants before the High Court by their petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 apparently the only point urged before the High Court was that the authority was in error in holding that an error of law cannot be a sufficient cause under the relevant proviso to· s. 15 (2) of the Act. It does not appear that the attention of the High Cour~ was drawn to the second finding made by the authority, and so, that aspect of the matter has not been considered in the judgment of the High Court. Dealing with the point raised before it the High Court agreed with the view taken by the authority, and held that ignorance of law cannot constitute a sufficient cause. "Ignorance of law", observed the High Court, " is ignorance of the rights of a party which the law confers upon him, whereas mistake of Jaw is mistake in establishing those rights (r) Vide Bombay Labour Gazette, dated January 1953, Vol. 32, No. 5. p. 52r. 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)) '959 by, for instance, going to one forum instead of another." Sitaram The High Court has observed that in cases where there Ramcharan Etc. is a mistake of law courts have altnost uniformly taken v. the view that the time taken up by asserting the M. N. Nagarshana rights in a wrong court or a wrong forum should be ••d Others excused, and in coming to this conclusion they had Gajendragadkar 1. been largely influenced by the principle underlying s. 14 of the Limitation Act. That is how the petitions filed by the appellants in the High Court were dismissed. Before dealing with the merits of the contentions raised by Mr. Phadke in the present appeals it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of s. 15 of the Act. S. 15(1) provides for the appointment of the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages of persons employed or paid in that area. Sub·s. (2) provides, inter alia, that if any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person contrary to the provisions of the Act or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-s. (3). It is under this sub-section that the present applications have been made. The firnt proviso to sub-s. (2) prescribes limitation, and says that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the cause of action accrued. It is the second proviso with which we are directly concerned in the present appeals. This proviso lays down further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. The principal question which has been agitated in the High Court and before the authority was whether ignorance of law can be said to constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of this proviso. Mr. Phadke contends that. this proviso confers wide discretion on the authority and Legislature has deliberately not circumscribed or regulated in any mo,nner the exercise of the sai(l discretion. He concedes that it has to be exercised judicially but he protests o,gainst - S.O.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 883 the imposition of any rigid rule, or, as he called it, z959 self-denying ordinance, by which the authority would invariably refuse to treat ignorance of law as falling Ram;~:::nmEte. within the expression " sufficient cause " under the v. proviso. According to him there is no rule in IndiaM. N. Nagarshana that ignorance of law cannot be a sufficient cause for and Others explaining the delay made in instituting legal proceed- . - ings; and he strongly urged that even if such a rule Ga1mdragadkar J. applies to ordinary legal proceedings it would be singularly inappropriate in the interpretation of the provisions of welfare legislation like the Act. In support of this argument Mr. Phadke has invited our attention to the decision of the House of Lords in Hyman v. Rose (1) as well as the decision of this Court in Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabai (2). Both these decisions dealt with the question of the discretion vested in the courts to grant relief against forfeiture, and .Mr. Phadke's argument was that the relevant words used in that behalf in conferring discretion on the courts have been construed in their widest denot1J,tion and are similar to those in the proviso with which we are concerned; and so the same construction should be adopted in interpreting it. He has also strongly relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram (3) where their Lordships have considered the trend of judicial decisions in India which interpreted s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and have observed that there appeared to bea uniform practice in the Indian High Courts under which a mistake in law was in proper cases treated as sufficient cause for excusing delay. "Now ifthe matter were entirely open", said Lord Dunedin in delivering the judgment of the Board, " in as much as a mere mistake in law is not per se sufficient reason for asking the court to exercise its discretion under s. 5, there would be a good deal to be said in argument in favour of making the rule universal . . . ... But the matter is not open. To interfere with a rule which after all is only a rule of procedure which has been laid down as a general rule by Full Benches in .all the Courts of (1) [1912] A.C. 623. (2) [1.953] S.C.R. 1009; 1027. (3) (1917.) L.R. 44 I.A. 218. 884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] '959 India, and acted on for many years, would cause great Sitaram inconvenience, and their Lordships do not propose so Ramcharan Etc. to interfere". Mr. Phadke argues that this decision is v. an authority for the proposition that in a proper• case M. N. Nazarshana a mistake of law or ignorance of law may constitute a and Others sufficient cause under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, and according to him, the same principle should apply in Gajendragadkar J. construing the proviso in question. We do not propose to deal with this argument because, as we will presently point out, we have come to the conclusion that the appellants would fail even if we were to uphold Mr. Phadke's present contention. As we have already noticed the authority has held against the appellants on two grounds, one that ignorance of law cannot be a sufficient cause, and second that, even if it was, in fact the appellants had not explained the delay made by them in making the present applications after they knew of the decision in the case of Ruby Mills(') on May 2, 1952. This latter conclusion is a finding on a question of fact and its propriety or validity could not have been challenged before the High Court and cannot be questioned before us in the present appeals. Unfortunately it appears that the attention of the learned judges of the High Court was not drawn to this finding ; otherwise they would have considered this aspect of the matter before they proceeded to deal with the interesting question of law raised before them. Mr. Phadke fairly .conceded that he could not effectively challenge the finding of the authority that no satisfactory explanations had been given for the delay in question. He, however, argued that the said finding would not effect the final decision because, according fo him, once it is held that ignorance of law can be a sufficient cause, then the period until May 2, 1952, .,. would be covered by the appellants' ignorance about the true scope and effect of th.!l provisions of s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. This position may be conceded. It is true that the true effect of the said section was not appreciated by either the (1) Vide Bombay Labottr Gazette, dated January 19,53. Vol. 32, No. 5, p, 521. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 885 workmen and their union or the employers or the 1 ?so authorities under the Factories Act, or even by the Sitaram industrial courts. But the question still remains Ranicharan Ft". whether the appellants are not required to expla.in the v. delay made by them after May 2, 1952. Mr. Phadke M. N: :Vagarshana says that it is not necessary for his clients to explain anu Othe1s this delay. His argument is that what the relevant Gajendra•adkar J. proviso really means is that if sufficient cause has been ° . shown for not making the application within the prescribed period of six months then the application can be made any time thereafter. The statutory bar created by the prescribed limitation is removed once it is shown that there was sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period; and once that bar is removed, there is no further question of limitation and the applicant cannot be called upon to explain the subsequent delay. That is the effect of the argument urged by Mr. Phadke on the relevant proviso. This argument is substantially founded on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lingley v. Thomas Firth & Sons Ltd. (1 ). In that case the court had to construe the words "reasonable cause" used in proviso (b) to s. 2, sub-s. (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, C. 58). S. 2 (1) prescribes a limitation of six months for the making of a claim for compensation arising out of an accidt'nt caused to the workmen falling within its purview, and proviso (b1 lays down that the "failure to make a clann within the period above specified shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if it is found that the' failure was occasioned by mistake, absence from the United Kingdom or other reasonable cause." In the case of Lingley {1 ) the claim had been admittedly made beyond the period of six months and within a. couple of months thereafter an application for arbitra.1 ioll for compensation was filed. The County Court Judge was scause they agreed. that, if the bar imposed by the statutory period of six months prescribed for the making of the claim had been raised, the claim of the applicant could not be subjected to any further bar of limitation. It is this view on which Mr. Phadke relies, and he contends that the same principle should be applied in construing the relevant proviso to s. 15 of the Act. In this connection Mr. Phadke has invited our attention to three Indian decisions-J. Hogan v. Gafur Ramzan(1), Salamat v. Agent, East Indian Railway (9), and Kamarhatti Oo. Ltd. v. Abdul Samad('). These decisions were concerned with claims for compensation made under s. 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), the first two under s. 10 as it stood prior to its amendment in 1938, and the last one under the said section as it was amended in 1938. It may be added that all the three decisions purport to adopt the view taken by the Court of Appeal in the case of Lingley ( • ). Now in order to appreciate the effeot of the decision in the case of Lingley(') it would be relevant to emphasize that in that case the Court of Appeal was really giving effect to an earlier dePision of the House of Lords in Powell v. The Main Colliery Co. Ltd.(') and, as the judgments of all the learned judges indicate, they were following the said decision with some reluctance. (1) XXXV B.L.R. JJ4). (3) (1952) I L.L.J. 490, 49z. (2) \1938) I.L.R. 2Cal. 5z, 58. 14) (1921) 1 K.B. 655. (5) (1900) A.C. 366. • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 887 In the case of Powell (1) the House of Lords had held r959 thet the claim for compensation specified in s. 2(1) of Sitarani the English Act does not mean initiation of the proRamcharan Etc. ceedinga before the tribunal by which compensation is to v. be assessed, but a notice of claim of compensation sentM. N. Nagarsl1ana to the workman's employer. In other words, according ana Others tho tha 2 t( 1 decisi1 ?n, thehlimita:tionfof1 s~x moh~thhs presckribed Gajentlragatlkar J. y s. ) app ies tot e notice o c aim w w a wor man has to give to his employer; it had no reference to the proceedings which a workman would institute before the tribunal claiming to recover the said compensation. The notice of claim had to be served on the employer within six months after the date of the accident, and after serving such notice, proceedings had to be initiated before the tribunal claiming compensation. The effect of the two English decisions, therefore, is that if a workman shows sufficient. cause for the delay· made by him in serving the notice of claim on the employer there was no question of calling upon him to explain any further delay made by him in instit,uting the proceedings before the tribunal for the recovery of compensation. In fact, for the institution of such proceedings there was no statutory limitation at all. Let us now turn to s. 10 of our Workmen's Compensation Act. S. 10(1) as it originally stood prescribed a period of six months for the making of the claim for compensation. It also required that notice of the accident had to be given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and before the workman had voluntarily left the employment in which he was injured. The second proviso to s. 10(1) lays down that the Commissioner may admit and decide any claim to compensation notwithstanding that the notice had not been given or the claim had not been instituted in due time as provided by the sub-section if he is satisfied that the failure so to give notice or to institute the claim as the case may be was due to sufficient cause. It appears that in construing the material terms of this proviso it was thought that the position under the proviso was similar to the position (1) [1900] A.C. 366. 888 SUPREME COURT REPOHTS [1960(1)) '959 under the proviso (b) of s. 2(1) of the English Act. It is open to argument whether that is really so; but, in Sitaram Ramchamn Etc. any case, after s. 10 was amended in 1938, the position v. is clearly different and distinguishable from the posiM. N. Naga,;hana tion of the English section. The relevant proviso and Othm under the amended section lays down that a CommisG . d-dh 1 sioner may entertain a.nd decide any claim for com- •J'" .aga ar • pensation in any case notwithstanding that notice has · not been given, or the claim has not been preferred before it in due time as provided bys. 10, sub.a. (1), if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim as the case may·be was due to sufficient cause. It is significant that s. 10(1) requires the notice of accident to be given as soon as practicable and the claim to be preferred before the Commissioner within six months. This period has subsequently been enlarged to a period of one year; but that is another matter. Thus the position und~r s. 10 as amended clearly is that the six months' limitation has been prescribed for preferring the application for compensation before the Commissioner; and so there can be no analogy between the limitation thus prescribed and the limitation prescribed by s. 2(1) of the l