MC 2961/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. By this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 286 days in preferring the connected appeal against the award dated 6/6/08 pass ed in WC Case No.121/03 by the Commissioner, Workmens’ Compensation, Kamrup. The grounds for condonation of delay have been stated in paragraph-3 as follows: 3. That the concerned Advocate for the Insurance Company sent the copy of the o rder dated 06.06.2008 to the petitioner company on 29.01.2009. The counsel of t he petitioner Co. Mr. K. Gupta did not appear in the case and the same proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner company after receiving the copy of the order request ed Mr. P.K.Sarmah, Advocate to furnish his legal opinion. Mr. Sarmah vide his l egal opinion dated 10.02.2009 advised to satisfy the award. The petitioner comp any was not satisfied with the opinion and thereafter took a decision to obtain 2nd legal opinion from their conducting lawyer at High Court. In view of such d ecision the entire case record was sent to their empanelled lawyer at High Court for further opinion. On 26.02.2009 their counsel at High Court furnished the o pinion on 12.03.2009 for preferring appeal. The legal department thereafter took a decision to hand over the file for preferring appeal and eventually the appea l was handed over to their lawyer on 27.03.2009 for preferring appeal. However, the concerned lawyer could not prefer the appeal in time as his father expired on 02.04.2009. The concerned lawyer could not resume his professional works for pretty long time and ultimately he could prepare the same and file the appeal o n 19.05.2009 and in the process their occurred delay of 286 days. A bare perusal of the aforesaid ground, in my considered opinion, do not disclose that there are reasons sufficient enough to condone the inordinate del ay in preferring the appeal. The appellant/insurance company is armed with requi site number of employees who are engaged for looking into legal matters inspite of that the appeal is not filed within the statutory period and the grounds made for condoning the delay is appears to be throwing blame upon the advocate conce rned. In view of the above discussions, I do not consider it to be a fit case for condoning the inordinate and unexplained delay of 286 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed in Workmens’ Case No. 121/03 under the provisio n of Workmen Compensation which is a welfare legislation. However, Mr. Dutta is right in his submission that the interest directed to be paid by the Commissioner from the date of accident is not permissible und er the law and such interest shall be paid from the date of the judgment. Subject to above observations, this misc. case stands dismissed.