(1.) This application is filed by the applicant for condonation of delay of 2198 days caused in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and order dtd. 19/2/2014 by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act in W.C. (Non-Fatal) Application No.17 of 2008.
(2.) At the outset, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there is in fact no delay as the applicant had filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and order under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (for sort "CPC") which was pending and it was decided only on 18/1/2022 and the appeal was filed before this Court on 12/4/2022 which is within the prescribed limit of 90 days. However, by considering the date of judgment and order of 19/2/2014, from which the delay is to be calculated the application is filed for condoning the delay. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the application for setting aside the ex-parte order was in terms of the provisions of law and the applicant was within his right to agitate the issue.
(3.) As against this, learned advocate appearing for the opponent has vehemently submitted that the delay is inordinate and the application made for setting aside ex-parte order is not a bonafide, but is a delay tactic to avoid the payment. It is submitted that the opponent had to file an application for recovery pursuant to the impugned judgment and order and the recovery application is also decided in favour of the opponent- employee and therefore, now by challenging the delay, the applicants wants to further delay the payment. It is submitted that as on date despite there being judgment and order in favour of the opponent, the opponent has not received any amount. Learned advocate for the opponent has submitted that the application for setting aside the ex-parte order cannot be treated as bonafide as the advocate himself was present in the proceedings before the Labour Court and it is the duty of the applicant himself to be vigilant about the ongoing proceedings.