BHARTO DEVI Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was filed through Shri R.N.Narula, Advocate, who has unforutnately expired. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Court, it was ordered that notice be sent to the appellant.

(2.) Thereafter, the Registry has made attempts to serve the appellant.

(3.) Summons have been received back with the report that the appellant is not residing at the given address. As the counsel is dead, it is not possible for the Registry to ascertain correct address of the appellant in the present case. Matter cannot be allowed to remain pending in this situation. Records have been perused. It is apparent from the records that vide order under challenge, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, condoned penalty of an amount of Rs. 5,250/- while disposing of the application moved by the respondent. This Court feels that sufficient reasons have been given to pass that order. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed.