IN THE tfl^H COURT O^JUDICATURE AT X BILASPUR fC.G.) & M.A.m No^'0 ?-OF 2010 ^ ^ Appellant: (0wner) ResDondents . ^{Insure) ^M> ^^ ^y 1) Bhupesh Kumar Bais S/o Jivrakhan Lal Bais ^ Age about 31 years, R/o Village-Chaarra, Thana & Tah. Kumd, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.). YS, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Dhamtari (C.G.) Branch Office- Adarsh Bal Minder Main Road Dhamtari, Through- Manager, Divisional OfBce Malaya Nagar, Durg (C.G.) ^ ^ ..^ ._-^ ^?" Ganesh Ram Dewangan S/o shri Bhaguram Dewangan, age about 57 years R/oSantoshi Nagar, ^ ^^Y~^_NearShivmandir, Thana-Tikarapara, Raipur (C.G.) ^^-^ -°^r^ ^>^ ^^sx^ Claimants \^ 3). Smt. Kamla Bai Dewangan W/o Lt. Bhanu Ram Dewangan aged about 22 years, R/o Village- Kokadi, Tah.Kumd, Distt.-Dhamtari (C.G.)/ Present Address- Gagadhar Dewangan S/o Shri Raja Ram Dewangan, C/o Kaushal Dewangan Dharmasala Road, Near Om Kirana Storse, Gayanagar,Durg Distt.-Durg (C.G.) 4) Ku. Gayatri Dewangaa S/o Late Bhanu Ram Dewangan, (Minor) Through-Mather Smt. Kamla Bai, R/o Dharmasala Road , Gaya Nagar, Durg. (C.G.). (£^,< 1. ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMAN COMPENSATION ACT-1923 ^ (f> HIGhLCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. J. Appellant (Owner) Respondents (Insurer) M.A.(C)No.4070F2010 Bhupesh Kumar Bais Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Durg and others Present: Shri CK Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri HP Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. ORDER (Orall (30th November72011) r On account of death of respondent No.2, his name has been deleted and his LRs are already on record in the form of respondents No.3&4. Heard on IA No.01, application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. This appeal has been filed with a delay of 216 days. In the application for condonation of delay, which is supported by affidavit of the appellant, it has been stated that the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Durg (in short "the Commissioner") was not known to the appellant since he resides at a distant place and he came to know about the award only on 12.3.2010 when he had received notice issued in the proceedings for execution of the award, and for this reason, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of 60 days, as provided under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "the Act, 1923"). From perusal ofthe impugned award dated 10.7.2009, it is found thatas per what is mentioned in para-2 of the impugned award that the present appellanVemployer had appeared before the Commissioner and filed preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the claim petition under the Act, 1923 for grant of compensation and subsequently, the appellant/employer remained absent, on account of ^ which ex-parte proceedings were held against him. This fact finds corroboration from the Lower Court Record. As such, the grounds which have been mentioned in the application for condoning the delay, are prima facie false, as is evident from perusal of the LCR as well as para-2 of the impugned award. Consequently, it cannot be said that the delay of 216 days has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. Hence, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, being devoid of substance, is rejected. Consequently, the appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act, 1923, also stands dismissed as barredby limitation. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ ^jp