1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4718 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.9067 OF 2007 M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... APPLICANT VERSUS Gorakh s/o Dodhu Patil & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri H.A. Patankar, Advocate holding for Shri V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for the applicant Shri P.B. Salunke, Advocate holding for Shri V.A. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 130 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No.9067/2007, challenging the judgment and award passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Judge, Labour Court, Jalgaon on 22.11.2006 in W.C. Application No.31/2000, 2 awarding the compensation amount of Rs.1,71,370/- to the original claimants with interest thereon. 3. The applicant submits that, after passing the said judgment and award dated 22.11.2006, the applicant applied for certified copy thereof on 11.12.2006 and obtained the same on 18.12.2006 and thereafter forwarded the said copy to Jalgaon Branch who, after study of the papers, opinion etc., referred the matter to Regional Office at Nagpur for approval. It appears that, the Regional Office has accorded approval for filing an appeal and forwarded the file to Divisional Office at Aurangabad in second week of May 2007. Thereafter, immediately the file was handed over to the Advocate with suitable instructions to file an appeal. In the process, delay of 131 days was caused in filing appeal. The applicant submits that, the delay is caused bonafidely and same is not willful, deliberate and intentional and, therefore, requested that same be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that official hassle and procedural aspects cannot be construed as ground for condonation of delay and relied upon the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, headed by the Hon’ble the Chief 3 Justice in the judgment reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others) and also on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.). 5. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that even the applicant applied for the certified copy after the lapse of about 20 days from the pronouncement of judgment and award and the applicant has failed to explain the delay satisfactorily and hence, submitted that the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is willful, deliberate, intentional and it is inordinate also and, therefore, same cannot be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that, if the present application is allowed, prejudice would be caused to the respondent and, therefore, submitted that same be rejected. 6. Considering the averments in the present application and also considering the rival contentions, at the outset, it is apparently clear that although the judgment and award was passed on 22.11.2006, the applicant applied for the certified copy thereof after about 20 days i.e. on 11.12.2006 and applicant has not explained the said delay anywhere satisfactorily. It also 4 appears from the averments made in the application that the applicant has failed to explain the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal satisfactorily and, therefore, delay of 131 days occurred in filing the accompanying First appeal cannot be construed as bonafide and it is certainly inordinate and, therefore, same cannot be condoned. 7. As regards another contention of the applicant that the said delay was caused because of official hassle and procedural aspects, in the said context, reliance can be very well placed on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the judgment reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), in which it has been held as under : “ The public authority or a department is not expected to be negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become barred by time surely because of its negligence and inaction. The applicants in their application have stated that delay occurred because of “official hassle” and approval at different levels. This can hardly justify condonation of delay. In law advantage has accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the 5 applicants. Despite, awards/ judgments of the Courts, which have attained finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive compensation that itself would be a sufficient prejudice to their rights. Before the delay can be condoned and claimants can be subjected to a prolonged litigation, the onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant State. For the reason that the applicants have failed to show sufficient or reasonable cause (in fact they have shown no cause) for the condonation of delay, it is declined.” 8. Moreover, recently the Apex Court, in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.) by judgment dated 3.11.2008, held that it is the duty of the applicants though they are Government authorities, to explain the delay with cogent reasons and reliance can be very much placed on the observations made in paragraph No.24 thereof which reads as under : “24. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the Government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the 6 Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or provided they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to sugget collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.” 9. In the circumstances, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and hence, deserves to be rejected and the same stands rejected accordingly. Registration of First appeal stands refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca4718.07