1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C.A.F. No.2648/2010 in F.A. St. No.15513/2010 ( United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Yavatmal Branch, through the Regional Manager, Nagpur ..V/s.. Sitaram S/o Champat Sidam and another ) With C.A.F. No.2652/2010 in F.A. St. No.15506/2010 ( United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Yavatmal Branch, through the Regional Manager, Nagpur ..V/s.. Smt. Malabai Wd/o Maroti Ghodam & others ) With C.A.F. No.2653/2010 in F.A. St. No.15504/2010 ( United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Yavatmal Branch, through the Regional Manager, Nagpur ..V/s.. Smt. Jijabai Wd/o Khushalrao Surpam & another ) With C.A.F. No.2654/2010 in F.A. St. No.15510/2010 ( United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Yavatmal Branch, through the Regional Manager, Nagpur ..V/s.. Sou. Dhurpada W/o Sanjay Kowe & another ) With C.A.F. No.2659/2010 in F.A. St. No.15516/2010 ( United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Yavatmal Branch, through the Regional Manager, Nagpur ..V/s.. Pawan s/o Khushal Surpam & another ) 2 _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. D.N. Kukday, Adv. for applicant. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 12.01.2011. The above civil applications have been filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of delay in the appeals filed by it against the award passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Yavatmal under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The delay in filing the appeals ranges from 72 days to 81 days and the reasons why the delay has occasioned are mentioned in the civil applications. The respondent no.1 who is the original claimant has been served in all the above applications. None appears for respondent nos.1 and 2 though served. The respondent no.2 which is the construction company with whom the claimants were working has also been served in all the civil applications except Civil Application No.2653/2010 where the office noting shows that the service is awaited. In my view considering the fact that the respondent no.2 is served in all the civil applications the fact that the service is awaited in 3 Civil Application No.2653/2010 need not detain the hearing of these applications for condonation of delay. Considering the reasons mentioned in the civil applications for delay in my view they deserve acceptance. Civil applications are therefore allowed. The delay in filing the first appeals by the applicant/appellant stands condoned in each of the appeals. The civil applications are accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Tambaskar.