Mpt CAF No.407/11 FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.407 of 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL St.No.2774 of 2011 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2774 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.D.B.Gupta for the applicant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 11th February 2011 P.C. : 1. A claim petition was made before the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation at Mumbai by the widow and children of the deceased workmen. An award was passed against the employer as well as the insurance company. That order is challenged in the present appeal which is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. 2. The appeal is filed after about five months and is barred by limitation. An application has been made for condonation of delay. In my view, the appeal itself does not involve any substantial question of law which is condition precedent for entertaining an appeal under section 38 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Even otherwise, no sufficient ground has been made out for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that papers were required to be sent from the branch office to the regional office which is at Mumbai and that has resulted into delay. The claim application was made before a Commissioner for workmen’s compensation at Mumbai and the branch office which is involved is also situated at Mumbai. Therefore, the papers could have been sent from one office to another office of the appellant insurance company in the same town within a day or two. The delay caused for sending of the papers from one office to another in the same town of the same company are not satisfactorily explained. In my view, sufficient ground for condonation of delay is not made out. Hence application is rejected. Consequently, appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)