1 2025:CGHC:27651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 676 of 2017 1 - Shankar Gupta S/o Late Ramjeevan Gupta, Aged About 43 Years Occupation Tent House, R/o Village Sitapur, Post And Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Kamla Bai W/o Late Puni Ram, Aged About 29 Years Caste Kaser, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Bazaarpara, Sitapur, Post And Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gunjipati W/o Late Sonsa, Aged About 71 Years Caste Kaser, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Bazaarpara, Sitapur, Post And Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Srawan Kumar S/o Late Puni Ram, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Namely Kamla Bai W/o Late Puni Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Caste Kaser, R/o Village Bazaarpara, Sitapur, Post And Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 Order on Board 20/06/2025 1. Heard. 2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred challenging order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court, Ambikapur in Case No.47/E.C. Act/2012 (Fatal), whereby the appellant/non-applicant has been directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,88,047/- along with Rs.5000/- as cost of suit which shall be payable with interest of 12% per annum from the date of order. This appeal was preferred by the applicant without mandatory compliance of proviso of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Since year 2017, the appellant was being granted opportunity to remove the default as pointed out by the Registry but the same has not yet been removed. 3. Today, despite repeated calls neither appellant present nor represented by any counsel. 4. In this circumstances, this Court has left with no other option except to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. 5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi