AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.G. Chitre, J.
This is delay condonation application, in which delay of 569 days is prayed to be condoned. Reasons given by the appellant for condonation of such long period of delay is that the appellant lastly remained present before the Commissioner on 30.1.1995 and on that date, the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 pleaded no instructions. It is his contention that thereafter the said case was heard on 7.3.1995, 31.3.1995 and it was fixed for orders on 24.4.1995. Mr. Pankaj Bagadia further submitted that for the first time the appellant received information on 21.7.95 that some order was passed against it on 24.4.1995.
The appellant further contended that thereafter the appellant filed review petition, which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 10.10.96 holding that he did not have the jurisdiction to review the impugned order. The appellant further contended that it filed writ petition before this Court bearing No. 1516 of 1996 which was dismissed by this Court on 13.11.1996.
Mr. Bagadia submitted that under these circumstances, the delay needs to be condoned in the interest of justice. Mr. S. Patwa appearing for the respondents argued that the delay is of 569 days and that has not been satisfactorily explained.
Certified copy of the order, which has been passed by this Court in the matter of writ petition No. 1516 of 1996 shows that the petitioner withdrew the writ petition for initiating delay condonation proceedings and for challenging the impugned order. The interlocutory application for condonation of delay does not explain the cause which had prevented him from appearing in the court after 30.1.1995. The application is quite vague. Such a long period of delay is not properly explained in it.
It is to be noted that the petition dismissed on 13.11.1996 and the delay condonation application has been filed on 13.1.1997 and this appeal has been filed without certified copy of the impugned order. Even that care has not been taken by the appellant. The law does not help indolent. The appellant is challenging the award which has been passed in favour of LRs of the deceased victim.
I do not find any cause for condonation of delay which is properly explained. The delay of 569 days has not been explained in the matter involving the compensation, which has been granted to the LRs of deceased workman. The delay condonation application stands dismissed resulting in dismissal of the appeal. Mr. Sanjay Patwa submitted that the amount deposited in the office of the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents. Needless to say that she is entitled to make such prayer to the Commissioner.