1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. FIRST APPEAL NO.2271/2008 Shri Rohidas Ashruba Khedkar. ..Appellant -VERSUS- State Transport Corporation. ..Respondent ......... Mr.M.B.Kotak, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. This appeal is purported to have been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act against the order passed by the Commissioner which goes to reject the application moved by the appellant for condonation of delay. 2. Perusal of the application moved by the appellant before the Commissioner seeking condonation of delay reveals that the appellant met with an accident on 05.02.1996. The application for compensation was filed sometime in the year 2003. The limitation for filing the application for compensation is two years as provided by 2 Section 10(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act. Thus, there was delay of more than five years in filing the application. The appellant filed the application by making vague averments that for some time he was hospitalized after the accident and thereafter, he went to his native place to recover from the illness and thus, some delay was caused. 3. The Commissioner has held that no sufficient cause is shown for belated filing of the application and thus, proceeded to reject the application. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Commissioner/Labour Court was conscious of the fact that the Courts are expected to take liberal and pragmatic approach while deciding the application for condonation of delay. However, in the facts of the case as the Commissioner found that no sufficient cause was shown and the delay was more than five years, proceeded to reject the application. 4. My attention is invited to Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act which provides for an appeal to the High Court against the orders passed by the Commissioner referred therein and that too when a substantial question of law is involved. There is no appeal provided against the order which goes to reject an application for condonation of delay. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the substance what has been rejected is the claim petition and thus, the appeal would lie. Even if the approach is made from the said 3 angle, first proviso enables filing of an appeal only if the substantial question of law emerges for consideration. The impugned order is a discretionary order declining to condone the delay of more than five years. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed summarily. JUDGE