1 2025:CGHC:22977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1071 of 2025 • The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office Parakh Bhawan, Station Road Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Non-applicant No.3). ... Appellant versus 1. Ashok Kumar Dahariya, S/o Shri Dhunkuram Dahariya, R/o Village Budhwara, P.O Paudi, Tahsil & P.S. Bodla, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Applicant). 2. Managing Director, Bhoramdev Sahkari Sakkar Utpadak Kharkhana Maryadit Sakkar Nagar, Village Ramhepur, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Non-applicant No.1). 3. Ramprasad Baghel, R/o Bhoramdev Sahkari Sakkar Utpadak Kharkhana Maryadit Sakkar Nagar, Village Ramhepur, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Non-applicant No.2). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 11/06/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’), challenging the award dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner Employee’s Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Case No.- 89/W.C. Act/2013/Non Fatal. DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that impugned award was passed by the concerned Labour Court on 20.08.2024. Period of limitation for filing of the appeal against the impugned award is 60 days, as provided under Section 30 of the Act, 1923, as such appeal against the impugned award dated 20.08.2024 ought to have been filed till 19.10.2024, but the same has been filed after the delay of 195 days, i.e., after completion of appeal period. He further submits that the cause of delay is over sightness of the office of appellant/insurance company, and therefore, it could not send information about the passing of the award to its Divisional Office, Bilaspur. It is further submitted that delay occurred in filing the appeal is bonafide, therefore, I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 4. Perusal of impugned award shows that in pursuance of alleged accident, three fingers of right hand of the respondent No.1 has been cut off and he suffers from 40% permanent disability, in respect of which, award of compensation of Rs.2,37,882/- has been passed along with interest @ 12% per annum. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Versus The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 513 has held in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21, as under:- “17. It must always be borne in mind that while construing ‘sufficient cause’ in deciding application under Section 5 of the Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal, substantive right in favour of a decree- holder accrues and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The decree-holder treats the decree to be binding with the lapse of time and may proceed on such assumption creating new rights. 18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case of Ramla, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa 3 Coalfields Ltd reported in AIR 1962 SC 361 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. The court, despite establishment of a ‘sufficient cause’ for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party. 19. In Maqbul Ahmad vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1935 PC 85, it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. 20. In this connection, a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 11 SCC 351 wherein while observing, as above, this Court further laid down that if some person has obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion. 21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2011) 4 SCC 363 where the High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its 4 discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice-oriented approach’ and ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation.” 6. Having considered the gravity of the act, the huge delay of 195 days occurred in filing the instant appeal cannot be condoned in the light of above referred law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, particularly considering the trivial grounds putforth by the appellant/insurance company. In aforesaid fact situation, allowing the condonation application would hamper the precious time of the Court, therefore, I do not feel inclined to condone the delay of 195 days’ in filing the instant appeal. Hence, I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby rejected. 7. Consequently, instant appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company also stands dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge