MC 1954/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Hussain, lear ned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/claimant. The applicant though in the present application has mentioned that the d elay in filing the appeal is 219 days, in fact, taking into account the date of passing of the award, which is 04.07.2006, the delay occurred in filing the appe al is 415 days. The applicant by the present application is seeking condonation of delay on the grounds stated in paragraph 4 of the application. The said prayer has be en opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 by filing affidavit-in -opposition. The grounds on which the prayer to condone the delay made is that after receipt of the copy of the award by the Divisional Manager, which was sent to th e Regional Office on 29.08.2006, the opinion of the learned counsel was sought f or on 27.09.2006, which, however, could not be given till 15.11.2006, as the lea rned counsel was out of station. It has also been submitted that the Regional Of fice being not satisfied with the opinion of the concerned learned counsel on 15 .12.2006 sent the paper to another counsel for his legal opinion, who asked for some more papers vide communication dated 19.12.2006, which could be provided by the petitioner company on 23.03.2007 only i.e. more than after 3 months. It has also been contended that the learned counsel thereafter furnished his opinion o n 04.04.2007. The further contention is that the company for some official purpo se took away the entire file from the learned counsel in the month of April, 200 7 and kept it in their office, which was subsequently handed over to the learned counsel in the month of October, 2007, but the learned counsel was again out of station for which the file could be handed over only on 21.01.2008. According t o the applicant the learned counsel, thereafter, prepared the memorandum of appe al and filed. Reading of the averments made in paragraph 4 of the application reveals that there is no explanation from 19.12.2006 to 23.03.2007 why the petitioner co mpany took more than 3 months to furnish the documents to the learned counsel, w hose second opinion was sought to be obtained. There is also no explanation from 04.04.2007 to October, 2007 why the company has taken back the file and retain the same with it for 6 months. The applicant company has filed this application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal against the common award passed in MAC Case No.37 (B)/1993, which was renumbered as MAC Case No.37(B)/2006. By the said judgment a nother case being MAC Case No.58(B)/1993 was decided, against which an appeal wa s preferred together with the application for condonation of delay on the identi cal ground, which was rejected vide order dated 10.05.2010 passed in Misc. Case No.75/2009. Having regard to the aforesaid position, I am of the view that the appli cant could not explain the delay caused in filing the appeal. Hence the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Misc. case is accordingly dismissed.