1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C. A. F. NO. 2744 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 17381 OF 2010 Mineral Exploration Corporation Nagpur Vs. Sunderabai wd/o Omprakash Rangari & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Shri M. D. Samel Adv for applicant/appellant. Shri S. A. Kalbande Adv for non applicant/respondent. CORAM: .R. M. SAVANT J. Dated: 1 st MARCH, 2011. Civil Application has been filed for condoning the delay purported to be of 97 days. It is required to be noted that the application filed by the respondents before the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation was decided on 28.02.2002. The applicants did not remain present in the said proceedings though a Written Statement was filed, hence the said application came to be decided exparte and the applicant herein who was the non applicant in the said proceedings was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 82,380/- plus interest at 6% per 2 annum plus 6% penalty on the compensation amount. Thereafter the respondent no.1 herein who is the widow of the employee who was working with the applicants above named, filed an application for issuance of Recovery Certificate. Said application was filed invoking Section 31 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1983. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation by the order dated 27.04.2010 issued a Recovery Certificate in the sum of Rs. 1,48,578/- in favour of the respondents herein. The said order is now sought to be relied upon by the applicant to contend that there is a delay of only 97 days in filing the appeal. This is notwithstanding the fact that by an order dated 28.02.2002 application filed by the respondent no.1 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act came to be allowed and the said order of the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation has not been challenged by the applicant till filing of the above First Appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that delay has to be counted from 27.04.2010, as that is the order passed in the recovery proceedings cannot be countenanced and is only stated to be rejected. The original order as stated herein above is dated 28.02.2002 and it is infact the said order which is challenged by way of the above Appeal. The learned counsel for the applicants sought to justify the delay by contending that after the said order dated 28.02.2002 was passed proceedings were filed before the appellate authority as also an application for setting aside exparte order was filed before the same 3 authority. No such proceedings have been annexed to the appeal, paper book, or application nor any such orders have been produced. The learned counsel for the applicant is also not in a position to point out the Appeal provision if any in the said Act. Such a conduct on the part of a public sector undertaking therefore cannot be countenanced. The applicant being faced with an order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation should have placed all the cards before the Court, unfortunately the same is not the case and the huge delay of about 8 years is sought to be justified on imaginary and untenable grounds. In my view, applying the well settled dictum in the matters of condonation of delay namely the extent of delay is not material but the cause shown, the application does not deserve to be entertained. It is accordingly rejected. In view of the dismissal of the application the First Appeal does not survive and is disposed of as such. JUDGE svk 4 5 6