•—^^SK^ ^w SinflI&Benchi )ivision Bench' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A.^No. ^C/2006 •3) APPEALLANT Mukesh KumarAdhija S/o Motilal Adhija aged about 27 years, R/o Chantidih, Sabji Bazar, Shop No. 4,Wtolesale Seller ofvegetables, Chantidih, BilaspUr VERSUS RESPONDENTS ?- Shakuntala Bai W/o Late Rajendra KumarShrivas, Sarkanda Behind Bandhva Temple Bilaspur (C.G.) Ku. Madhu Shrivas D/o Late Shri Rajendra Shrivas Through:- Guardian MotherShakuntala Shrivas; Sarkanda, Behind Bhandhva Temple, Bilaspur(C.G.) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through:- Branch Manager Rajendra NagarChowk, Bilaspur(C.G.) 4. CommissionerWorkmens Compensation LabourCourt, Bilaspur(C.G-) "MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKSMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT 1923" Wi ^ w yy^' f/"/ <^/ ^' ^- ~ XI-HC-78 3TI^TcFT^i<=b cW 3TI^T 9FW^ *ii*ic<ii s.b*n^» 75T ^WW^, W^iWfQ, ^ldl^^i -—.!A-.A;./^.)..MO.^/ -q^^..*....^^,.^..^.^ ^^^ {?TM5i<t» (li,cii^ci<^r) 5^<TTW ^Tf?cf 3T1^T 03-01-2007 Shri S.P.Kaie, for the Shri Bharat Rajput, for tlj Shri Dasrath Gupta, for Heard on I.A.No.33S3/2{ Not opposed. Allowed. Aiso heard on M.(C.)P| 220 days in fiiing this appeal. On 28-07-2005. the Labour Court, Biiaspur pass< WCA/2003/COC-1-B/2003/ (F|) imposing penalty of 50% on| along with interest @ 6% p^r awarded. Since an error of order dated 20-09-2005 wa^ whereby the typographica! anc| The present appeai wa( The appea! is thus barred by| the expiry of prescribed perio|d the appeiiant is that his Bilaspur from 10-12-2005 to that extent is also filed. How4^ explanation for the delay in f|l Certificate Annexure A/10 of Q)i of father of the appeilant be^ fiied which is inconsequenti^i aplpellant. ie respondent No.1 & 2. |:he respondent No.3. p06 for taking Humdust notice on record. No.1342/2006 for condonation of deiay of cni^f<i4)'i ^j^<nT^*te^<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3:TT^T father 20 Commissioner. Workmen Compensation, d an award in Ciaim Case Number-267- Claim and Case No.tO-WCA/MCC/2005 the appellant amounting to Rs.1,75.343/- annum on the amount of compensation nathematicai caiculation had occurred, an passed by the Labour Court, Biiaspur mathematicai errors were corrected. preferred on 29-06-2006 by the appeilant. iimitation, having been fiied 220 days after of limitation. The expianation offered by was hospitalized in Apolio Hospltais, 3-12-2005. ThecertificateAnnexure A/S to \/er, from 20-12-2005 there is absoiuteiy no ing this appeai as late as on 29-06-2006. T. Sandeep Gupta regarding hospitaiization veen 23-07-2005 to 10-12-2005 has been since Dr. Sandeep Gupta was not the M ^ 1 BE E? XI-HC-78 ^n^T^rf^Tt^ cCT'3TI^Tsh^I<sb ll^dl ff»*lich ;3ST^TFn^T, ^'y'ic, (sfdiy^i ^-^^^:f.C.').^o..(H/ ^qj^ <..»..^^..^.*-.y^ ^Q^^ 3TI^?T 1CI?R7 (l^cl^d^) ?^TaiK^f?cr3n^r _^. treatlng physician during Gupta had prescribed bed re| which is not an ailment requir also pertinent to note that thei) appeliant had taken any st impugned order dated 20.09.; from 10.12.2005. It is aiso se^ of the impugned order on 1: after the expiry of the period| averment that the appellant \s| 20.09.2005 or was not repres^ hos|3itallzation of the appellant. Dr. Sandeep >t thereafter at home for diabetes meititus |ng constant attention by the appeilant. It is i|e is no averment in the application that the t^ps for prefernng this appeal after the |005 and before hospitaiization of his father ^n that the appeliant had appiied for a copy (05.2006 i.e. after considerabie deiay even |of limitation of 60 days. There is no such tas not aware of the impugned order dated (nted bycounsel. Learned counsel for State of Bihar and others V reported in A.I.R.-2000-S.Q 'suffident cause3 shouid be oriented approach rather th; comes to the aid of those prevented by any sufficient) iimitation. The facts mentiont benefit of the case law ciNc compiete slumber from the period of six months M.(C).P. No. 1342/2006 also thls period of six months for appellant was grossly neglige^ took no steps whatsoever i^ appeiiant is shown to be a cbl^f(rl41^ ^ll^dT^-T^ (\^W{ ^a^iran^T the appeilant has placed reiiance on . Kameshwar Prasad Sinah and another -2306 and prayed that the expression considered with pragmatlsm in a justice in a technicai manner. However, justlce Ipersons who despite due diiigence were cause from preferring an appeai within ^d above do not entitle the appeiiant to the above because the appellant v^as In a (jiate of the impugned order and aiso for a from 20-12-2005. The application ioes not show that he took any steps during ?resenting this appeal. in this manner, the it and extremeiy casual in his approach and preferring this appeal within time. The /holesale merchant of vegetabies and.was L.L XI-HC-78 W^T^Tf^f^ cT^TT W^T ^TP f°- vl, ^^T ^l+l^l ph*<l^> '<<I<IM^, y>T{itfli<s, fcldl-M^ ^^L^.Ca.^-0^ 200^ 3TT^?T ^^7 (^cj|^6<<^r) ^<rr^K^f?crw^T —2^ represented by counsel. The most casual manner almost for preferring this appeal. in my co condoned. No sufficient caus- condone the delay. The condonation of delay in filing tt Miscellaneous Appeal is also di; as to costs. i In view of the above, M.(< stands disposed of. Certified copy as per ruie^ ^n^fe^ WRff ^*te^ ^f^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T ^anner in which the appeilant acted in a |a period over six months, the delay in [isidered opinion, does not desen/e to be is thus made out by the appeiiant to ^pplication M.(C).P. Na.1342/2006 for is appeal is accordingiy dismissed. The .missed as barred by iimitation. No order ;).P. No. 1341/2006 for grant of stay aiso Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.