MC 3209/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. N. Pat hak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. None appears for the oth er respondents. The applicant, by the present application, is praying for condonation of delay of 220 days in preferring the appeal against the award dated 04.07.2006 p assed by the learned Member, MACT, Barpeta in MAC Case No. 57(B)/1993. By the said judgment three MAC cases were decided being MAC Case Nos. 37 (B)/1993 (2006), 38(B)/1993 and 58(B)/1993. The other two appeals filed against the common judgment and award togeth er with the application for condonation of delay were also dismissed as this Cou rt refused to condone the delay as the applicant has filed to explain the delay caused. The grounds on which, according to the applicant Insurance Company, the delay has occurred is narrated in Para 4 of the application. In Para 4 of the application it has been stated that the copy of the jud gment dated 04.07.2006 was received on 16.8.2006 and sent to the Regional Office on 29.8.2006 and thereafter the records were sent to the engaged counsel seekin g legal opinion on 27.09.2006, who, however could not furnished his opinion beca use he was out of station and ultimately furnished the same on 24.11.2006. Accor ding to the applicant being not satisfied with the opinion of the engaged counse l sent the file to another counsel for further opinion on 25.12.2006 and thereaf ter the learned counsel asked for some more documents on 19.12.2006, which were furnished to the learned counsel on 23.03.2007. Thereafter the applicant company for ’some official purpose’ took away the file from the learned counsel which w as given back to the learned counsel only in the month of October, 2007 for fili ng the appeal and accordingly the memo of appeal was filed. There is no explanation for the period from 19.12.2006 to 23.03.2007 and from 04.04.2007 to October 2007. Nothing has been stated why the required docum ents could not be made available to the counsel for more than three months. The reason for taking away the file from the learned counsel and keeping it in the o ffice has also not been explained. There is no proper explanation for the delay caused for the said period. In view of the above, the Misc. case stands dismissed.