A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) O TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH p TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23675 OF 2018 Between: 1 The Depot Manager APSRTC, Visakhapatnam depot Visakhapatnam 2. The Chairman-um-Managing Director APSRTC, Pandit Nehru Bus complex Vijayawada ...Petitioners AND 1. Kurmapu Someswara Rao, s/o Suryanarayana, aged about 35 years residing at Door No. 54-10-30 Relli village, Isuka Thota Visakhapatnam 2. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act 1923, And Deputy Commissioner of Labour Visakhapatnam ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the order of 2nd respondent passed in W.C.M.P.No. 20 of 2016 dated 29.12.2017, in condoning the delay of 1406 days in filing the W.C. as illegal arbitrary ad without jurisdiction. may one lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings in WC No. 2 of 2016 on the file of Hon'ble Court of Deputy Commissioner of Labour And Authority Under the workmen Compensation Act at Visakhapatnam pending disposal of writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Kurmapu Someswara Rao, s/o Suryanarayana, aged about 35 years residing at Door No. 54-10-30 Relli village, Isuka Thota Visakhapatnam ...Petitioner AND 1. The Depot Manager APSRTC, Visakhapatnam depot Visakhapatnam 2. The Chairman-um-Managing Director APSRTC, Pandit Nehru Bus complex Vijayawada. 3. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act 1923, And Deputy Commissioner of Labour Visakhapatnam ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to Vacate the Interim Stay orders passed in W.P .No 23675/ 2018 Dt. 12-07-2018. may be 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: -V 1 APHC010501552018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23675/2018 Between: The Depot Manager Apsrtc, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Kurmapu Someswara Rao and Others 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: ...RESPONDENT(S) 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 the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the order of 2nd respondent passed in W.C.M.P.No. 20 of 2016 dated 29.12.2017 in condoning the delay of 1406 days in filing the .WC as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and pass..." 2 2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the Petitioners. None represented for the respondents. 3. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the respondent No.1 worked as Driver in APSRTC, met with an accident. He lost his leg in the accident and a criminal case has been lodged against him and it was ended in acquittal. The respondent No.1 approached the authorities under Workman Compensation Act by filing a petition seeking compensation, with a delay of 1406 days. The delay was condoned vide impugned Order without assigning valid reasons. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that such a huge delay cannot be simply condoned without assigning any reasons. The Petitioners’ corporation has paid the benefits to the Respondent No.1 the Scheme formulated. He is also provided with alternate employment “Shramik”. Learned Authority ought not have condoned the delay of 1406 days. Learned Standing Counsel finally prays to allow the Petition. as per as 4. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, it is a case where the 1®* respondent while discharging his duties met with an accident. He suffered crush injury to his right leg and it was amputated resulting in 80% disability. The Criminal case registered against him was also ended in acquittal. The respondent No.1 approached the Commissioner for Employee Compensation seeking compensation with a delay of 1406 days. Learned Commissioner for Employee Compensation has rightly 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. V 3 Accordingly, the impugned order was passed by condoning the delay of 1406 days in preferring the petition before the Authority. It is a settled principle of law while exercising discretion in condoning delay, a liberal, pragmatic and justice-oriented approach has to be preferred over a rigid one. Hence, this Court 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. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA F^JU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTOI^OFFICER To, 1 One CC to Sri. 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 COURT DATED:25/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.23675of 2018 i i3jUN?rc>5 g Co Cyrrww ^uon . <* DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS