HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.^ILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI & PRA8HANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ, M. A. No. 755 OF 2006 Vs. MISC. APPEALS U/S 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPBNSATION ACT.1923 APPEARANCE: Mr. Viaay Harit, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/appeUants. Mr. Samir Singh, couusel for respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAL) (06.01.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J, 1. Heard on M(C).P.No.l031, an application for condonation of delay iti fiting fhe appeal. The appeal is barrcd by 756 days. 2.~ In the delay condonation appUcation, the reason has been assigned in para-3 which reads as Tiader: "It is subruitted fhat delay has been caused ia order to coinplete the procedures aad fonnalities involved while preferring aa appeal before the Hon'ble Court aad further inore ia APPELLANTS 1 State of Chliattisgarli fhrough ftie Joint Director, Departm.ent of Education, Bilaspur (C.G). 2 Govt. Upper Middle School, Tivarafha fhrough the Principal, Govt. Upper Middle School, Tivaratha, Distt. Korba (C.). RESPONDENTS 1. The Court of Conuiussioner, For Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C..G). 2. Smt. Biras Bai, wife ofLate Mahetar Baghel, Caste Satnami, R/o Vffl: Tivrafha, P.S. Kusinunda, Tehsil, Katgorta, Distt. Korba (C.G). •y .s '":;S£3,-3&^?K" compliaace of fhe Workmen's Compensation Act, delay was caused in receiviag fhe final sanction fi-oin fhe finaace department for wifhdrawing the amount to be deposited before the court of the respondent no.l aad the instaat appeal has been preferred after receiving fhe saaction which can be obtaiaed only ia the monfh ofMarch, 2006." No satisfactory reasons for the delay have been explaiaed in detail. More over, the finaiice departnient is also part of the Goverrunent and therefore, ifthere'was delay on the part of finaace department, fhe saine also cannot be excused. However, we have heard leamed counsel' for the parties at lengfh aad have also gone fhTough fhe records to fiad as to whether fhe appellants have any case on raerits also 3. The appeal was filed against the impugned award of Comiaissioner for Workmen's Coinpeusation, BUaspur (C.G) dated 30.01.2004 passed in case No.l60/W.C.A/COC-C- B/ 02(Non-Fatal Claims). 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2002, deceased Mehtar Baghel was engaged by non-applicaat no.2 for douig the electricity works ia their school. During the course ofhis duty on 28.06.2002 when he clunbed the electdc pole ia the school campus of respondent no.2, he feU down fiToni fhe i height of 25 feet, aad sustauied grievous injuries. On account of fhe said accident, his spiaal cord, Thyro-bone and right fhigh bone were fractured. He was imiaediately adinitted to Satabdi Hospital, Gevra by AppeUaat no.2 acid thereafter he was adinitted iu Distnct Hospital, Raipur where fh.e Doctors lookiag to fhe critical condition of the iajiired^ rmfT"" referred him to ApoUo Hospital, Bilaspur. He was adiuitted ia ApoBo Hospital, where he stayed for 10-15 days. The Doctors of ApoUo Hospitals expressed fheir inability that there woiild be no unproveinent ia the treatment. Therefore, he was brought back to his honie aad since fhen he was always bed-ridden aad was not ia a position to do physical works. Dunag the course of treatment, he was declared physicaUy haadicapped to fhe extent of 90% and fhe disabitity certi&cate was issued by fhe doctors. Ultiniately fhe deceased had died on 22.11.2002 due to the injuries sustained ia fhe said accident. At fhe time of accident, he was aged about 28 years aiid was survived by his vszife aad two chUdren. The iafonnation regardiug his deafh was sent to non-appUcao.t no.2 because he was pi-esent at the time of accident. 5. Wtule the deceased was bed ridden, he filed an application before fhe CoKiinissioner for Worknien Coinpensation allegirig tiiat appeUant no.2 had employed him for doia^ electricity work on. 28.6.2002 aad on the direction of appeUant no.2 Iie clmibed fhe electric pole aad while executiag the electricity work, he feU down froin the top of fhe Pole. He contended that he sustained 90% disabiUty and claimed conipensation to the tune ofRs.3,43,100/- with 50% penalty aad 18% iaterest per annnm. During fhe pendency of that appUcation, he died and his wife naruely Biras Bai being legal representative was substituted as claunan.t/appUcaD.t. ^-- 6. The leamed Commissioner for Workiuen Coinpensation after considering the uiaterial on record and on scrutiny of evidence led by fhe applicaat has arrived at the findiag that the deafh of Mahtar Baghel was caused by aa accident which took place when he was under fhe eiuployinent of respondent no.2 aad fhe claimant was entitled to receive conipensation for fhe deafh of deceased. The coiainissioner has further held that at the tune of accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years and was eamiag Rs. 100/- per day. He awarded a compensation ofRs.3,17,685/- which shall be paid within 30 days, fafliag which, the award shaU cany penalty of Rs. 1,58,842/ - and also iaterest @ 12% per annnm from. 22.11.2002 till fhe payment is made. 7. The Court below proceeded ex-parte against fhe State Govercunent/non-appUcau.t no.l. However, non-appUcaat no.2 i.e., Goveminent Higher Secondaiy School, Tivrata, fhrough its Principal put ia appearauce before the Coininissioner, Workinen's Coinpensation aud ffled his written stateruent that was also not a proper written stateinent. Thereafter the amendment appUcation was uioved to amend fhe written stateinent which was allowed on payinent of costs of Rs.300/-, but fhe amendiaent was not carned out despite fhe cost was awarded froin tiine to time while graating tirae to inake ainendinent. On 11.02.2003 also last opportuaity was giveii subject to cost of Rs.500/ aad the matter was fixed for 05.03.2003. On 05.03.2003, fhe amended written. statement was filed by non-applicant no.2, however, the same was opposed by the appUcaiit. Thereafter, on 29.10.2003, the leamed Cominissioner fixed 8. fhe date as 17.11.2003 for recordiag evidence of non- appUcaat no.2 but no evidence was produced ou fhat date and thereafter on 24.11.2003 & 23.12.2003 it was mentioned by fhe Commissioner fhat on the next date, he wffl hear the arguinents but in case fhe evidence is produced by non-applicant no.2, the same will be recorded first But unfortunately no evidence was produced aad on 30.01.2004 ar^uments were heard and fhe award was uiade. Thus fhe evidence of appUcant •wa.s only recorded and no evidence was produced by aay ofthe noti-applicants i.e., appeUants hereia despite tLme granted. t Further, fhe appeUants iTeniaiaed negligent iu fiUag fhis appeal also and it has been filed with aa iaordinate delay of 756 days fhat is inore fhan 2 years wifhout any satisfactoiy explanation. In view of fhe above, iu our opinion, it is not a i5t case in which delay be condoned as fhere is no case of the appeUaats on inerits also. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is disniissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed, as time barred and M(C).P.No.l030/ 2006 alsp stands disin^sed^ No cost(&L_ Sd;- i.M.Quddusi Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao