@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein met with an accident while on duty and, for this reason, he filed a case under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to as ''Act'') against respondent No. 1 (his employer). The Workmen Compensation Commissioner granted compensation in the sum of Rs.2,01,889/- as against the claim of Rs.6 lakhs. Challenging that order on the ground that the compensation awarded was not adequate, the appellant preferred appeal before the High Court under Section 30 of the Act. There was a delay of 145 days in filing this appeal and for that an application for condonation of delay was filed wherein it was explained that since the appellant had lost his job due to the accidental injuries suffered by him and was facing financial difficulties, he could not meet his advocate and arrange to file the appeal on time. The High Court has C.A. No. 2822/2017 dismissed the application for condonation of delay by the impugned order dated 30.01.2014 stating that the aforesaid ground does not constitute sufficient reason.
3. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid approach of the High Court is very myopic and unreasonable. In a case like this, where the appellant has suffered injuries in an accident and was facing financial difficulties because he has even lost his job, the High Court should have condoned the delay of 145 days which was not abnormal and should have entertained the appeal on merits.
4. We, thus, set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the High Court to decide the same on merits.
5. We may also request the High Court to decide the case as expeditiously as possible.
6. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
