In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 2289 of 2007 Date of decision: July 31, 2008 Brij Lal and another ... Appellants versus Ishwar Singh alias Leela Ram ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The award dated 31.10.2003, passed ex-parte, was challenged by way of the present appeal under Section 30 (1) (a) of the Act. Since the appeal was barred by limitation by 1300 days, therefore, it is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The delay was sought to be condoned on the ground that the award was passed ex-parte, therefore, appellants had to apply for setting aside the order of award passed by the learned Commissioner but their application was dismissed on 17.11.2005, thereafter, they filed Civil Writ Petition No.18550 of 2005 and Civil Writ Petition No. 19529 of 2005 against the order dated 17.11.2005. However, the said writ petitions were dismissed with the observations that the petitioners were at liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law, therefore, after dismissal of the writ petitions on 30.3.2006, the present appeal has been filed on 24.5.2007. It has been pleaded that the delay was neither intentional nor malafide and it is liable to be condoned. The respondents in their reply submitted that the delay in filing the appeal suffers from continuous negligence with an intention to avoid compliance of the award. It was further averred that though the writ petitions have been dismissed on 30.3.2006 but the appellants did not approach the High Court for more than a year after the dismissal of the writ F.A.O. No. 2289 of 2007 -2- *** petitions. It has been further observed that ex-parte order of award was in the knowledge of the appellants and they intentionally did not file the appeal but filed an application for setting aside the award that too on 8.9.2004 i.e. after 10 months, which was dismissed on 17.11.2005, but they did not proceed to file the appeal which was preferred after two years i.e. 24.9.2007. Even the writ petitions were filed after a long pause. It was further averred that in the same accident, out of which the present award has arisen, Sher Singh brother of the present claimant died and qua that claim the applicant has not filed any appeal which shows that he has accepted the legality of the order dated 31.10.2003 as well as 17.11.2005. Thus, he has prayed for dismissal of the application. Admittedly, the award was passed on 31.10.2003 in which the appellants did not appear despite service. This award was undisputedly appealable under Section 30 (1) (a) of the Act. The application for setting aside the ex-parte award an independent remedy which could not stop the limitation for filing the appeal. The effect of the award was that the appellants were to pay compensation therefore, it was certainly appealable. The writ petitions were not the alternative remedy in view of the hierarchy of the Courts to adjudicate the award. The period consumed in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte award or adjudication of the writ petitions could not be considered as legal proceedings filed bonafide and in good faith and the same could not be procured for defect of jurisdiction which could be considered as good grounds to exclude the said period for condoning the said delay in filing the appeal. Finding that there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay, this application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also fails. July 31, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge