25.09.2025 Item No.4 Ct. No.01 Saikat FMAT (WC)/36/2025 with IA NO: CAN/1/2025 with CAN/2/2025 BINA MALLICK ALIAS BINA MALLIK VS. NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. AND ANR. Mr. Anup Kumar Bag, Adv. …For the Appellant/Claimant Ms. Gopa Das Mukherjee, Adv. …For the Respondent/ Insurance Company In Re: CAN 1 of 2025 1. The applicant is a widow. 2. The appeal is delayed by 1379 days. 3. As sufficient and satisfactory cause has been shown by the widow for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The application being CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of. In Re: FMAT (WC) 36 of 2025 5. The appeal is arising out of an order passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation (2nd Court), West Bengal, in Claim Case No.245 of 2013. 6. We have read the impugned judgment and the evidence on record which persuaded us to take a lenient view in the facts and circumstances of the case as the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay would cause irreparable 2 prejudice and injury to the widow who is otherwise entitled to compensation. The learned tribunal dismissed the appeal on a complete misreading of the evidence as the document, namely, the death certificate filed before the learned tribunal would show that the husband of the claimant suffered an injury on 8th February, 2006, expired on 16th February, 2006, and he was admitted in the hospital with the injury on 8th February, 2006. 7. However, the corrected death certificate produced by the widow in the said proceeding was not taken into consideration and the learned tribunal has proceeded on the basis of the discrepancy among the date of the accident, date of admission in the hospital and date of death. 8. Moreover, the appellant/claimant has produced the best evidence available with her, namely, Exhibit-4 wherefrom it would appear that he was under the employment of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 in his written objection has admitted the relationship of the employer and employee. P.W.2, a co-worker deposed in support of the factum of employment as well as the date of the accident. 9. Both the oral and documentary evidence clearly establish the relationship of employer and employee as well as the date of the accident, which ultimately led to the death of Pabel Mallick. 3 10. On such consideration the impugned judgment and order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation (2nd Court), West Bengal, for assessment of the compensation on the basis of the evidence already on record within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order and disbursing the compensation amount as early as possible to the rightful claimant on proper identification. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. [SOUMEN SEN, C.J.(ACTING)] (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.)