1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No.289 of 2008. In Misc. C. A. No.7992/07. In FAST No.16694 of 2007. The Chief Conservator of Forest and others. Vs. Smt. Vanita Wd/o Telangrao and others ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Dated : 15th FEBRUARY 2008. This application is for condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of of the First Appeal. By the First Appeal, the Judgment delivered under Workman Compensation Act, was challenged. There was delay of about 64 2 days in filing the said appeal, and hence, Civil Application No.7992 of 2007 was moved for condoning that delay. This Court on 1-11-2007 issued notice on that application, and also stayed the Judgment impugned wherein. It appears that Bhatta for effecting the service upon the respondents was not paid, and therefore, on 27-11-2007, Civil Application was dismissed, and registration was refused in appeal. Thereafter, MCAST.No.633 of 2008 has been filed for restoration of said Civil Application and First Appeal. As there is a delay of 38 days in filing the said MCA, Civil Application No.289 of 2008 has been moved for condoning the same. Learned Government Pleader 3 Shri N. W. Sambre points out that the respondents claim that the husband of the respondent no.1 died of accident during employment, while in fact, he expired on account of heart attack, and the said death was not an accidental death, and was not caused during employment. He further states that because of some administrative problems, Bhatta could not be paid, and though interim order was procured, the service could not be effected on the respondents. He further points that before filing appeal, the entire amount of compensation has been deposited with the Commissioner, as per Workman Compensation Act. Advocate for the respondents on the other hand states that there are no sufficient reasons given in 4 the application for explaining the delay of 38 days. He further states that the respondents have obtained the order in their favour after long battle, and the amount of compensation is withheld from them. He, therefore, states that the Court should not exercise discretion in the matter, and appeal should be dismissed. Perused the application. The application is supported by affidavit, and it is mentioned that because vacation and late knowledge of order to the Office of Government Pleader, steps could not be taken. I do not find any malafides in the matter. Hence, delay of 38 days is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to present respondents within a period 5 of six weeks from today. Learned AGP fairly states that there was some negligence in handling the matter in the Office of the Government Pleader, and he is intending to hold appropriate enquiry in the matter to fix the responsibility. Learned Government Pleader is permitted to do so in accordance with law. If any member of staffs is found responsible, learned Government Pleader is also free to recover the costs from such person. MCAST no.632 of 2008. This application is for restoring the rejected First Appeal No.896 of 2007. Civil Application No.7992 of 6 2007 came to be dismissed for non payment of Bhatta on 27-11-2007, and therefore, registration has been refused of First Appeal. This Court today by a separate order in Civil Application No.289 of 2008, condoned the delay of 38 days in moving this MCAST for reasons recorded therein, and as the entire amount of compensation was already deposited before the Workman Compensation Court, and the interim order was already obtained, I find that there were no malafides on the part of the applicants in not prosecuting the matter diligently. In the circumstances, in view of the liberty given to the Learned Government Pleader to conduct the enquiry into the matter, the present MCAST is also allowed, 7 and the Civil Application No.7992 of 2007 is restored back to file. If the cost as mentioned in the Order passed in Civil Application No.289 of 2008 are deposited within a period of six weeks, Office to restore Civil Application No.7992 of 2007 and to list it for further consideration. Advocate Shri Naukarkar for the respondents fairly states that if the costs are so paid, and the Civil Application is restored, he would appear in the matter voluntarily. Both these applications are accordingly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Sbm