(1.) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 982 days caused in filing the appeal against the judgment and award dated 02-04-2004 passed by the learned Commissioner, Ahmedabad for Workmen's Compensation in Workmen's Compensation Application No. 90 of 1986.
(2.) Learned Advocate Mr. A. M. Parekh for the applicant submitted that the judgment and award was pronounced on 02-04-2004. As he was suffering from heart attack and other deceases, he was admitted in the Sterling Hospital. It was further submitted by the learned Advocate that opponent Nos. 1 to 3 claimants have preferred First Appeal No. 208 of 2006 before this Hon'ble Court arising from the same judgment and award and the appellant is impleaded as one of respondents therein and, therefore, he was under a bona fide impression that he is not required to file an appeal and, therefore, the delay was caused in preferring the appeal. When the applicant came to know about the passing of the award by the learned Commissioner, he preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 173 of 2004 for review of the judgment and award and as the matter for review was pending before the learned Commissioner, he could not prefer the appeal and, therefore, the delay was caused in filing the appeal. Thus, the learned Advocate representing the appellant submitted that as sufficient cause is made out in the application, delay of 982 days caused in filing the appeal be condoned. The learned Advocate for the applicant placed reliance on the affidavit filed by applicant - Kanubhai Ramabhai Patel in support of the contentions raised in the application and submitted that elaborate reasons are assigned in the further affidavit and, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is required to be allowed.
(3.) As against the aforesaid submissions, learned Advocate Mr. B. J. Trivedi representing the claimants vehemently submitted that Workmen's Compensation No. 90 of 1986 was decided by the learned Commissioner on 02-04-2004 and, thereafter, very belatedly the appellant filed the appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay. In Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1216 of 2007 for contempt, the applicant appeared on 23-07-2007 as bailable warrant was issued against him by the Division Bench of this Court. When the appellant was asked about his liability on 23-07-2002, he did not dispute the same as it is reflected in the order dated 23-07-2007 passed by the Division Bench (Coram: A. L. Dave and S. D. Dave, JJ.). In view of the afore stated facts and circumstances of the case, the application for condonation of delay is thoroughly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.