JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Ex-Officio Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Nadiad, in Workmen Compensation (Misc.) Application No. 12 of 2017 in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 1 of 2007 dated 29.03.2019.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the W.C. Commissioner requires to be quashed and set aside as the petitioner had no knowledge about the proceedings of W.C. (Fatal) Case No. 1 of 2017 due to non-representation of his case by the representative appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court, therefore the delay has caused which is required to be condoned. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not filed the restoration application with any mala fide intention, hence the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi, appearing for the legal heirs of respondent No. 1 has submitted that this petition need not be entertained, since the petitioner right from the beginning after the decision of the Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act in Misc. Application No. 07 of 2012 in W.C. Application No. 01 of 2007 dated 13.06.2012, has not complied with the same and has also not paid any amount, even after the issuance of recovery certificate. He has further submitted that each and every stage, there has been delay by the present petitioner, hence the writ petition may not be entertained.

4. The following facts are established from the record:

a) The respondent filed a Workmen (Fatal) Application No. 1 of 2007, claiming compensation under the Act, from the present petitioner which was decided by the award dated 13.06.2012.

b) It appears that the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings, except by filing the written statement, despite the issuance of notice. The Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act, was constrained to decide the same as ex parte vide award dated 13.06.2012.

c) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a restoration Application No. 7 of 2012 for setting aside the ex parte award which was rejected by the order dated 15.01.2013.

d) After the aforesaid rejection of the application of the petitioner, as the award became final, the respondent filed an application under the provisions of Section 31 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 for issuance of the recovery certificate.

e) Accordingly, the aforesaid application was allowed and order was passed on 03.08.2015 by the Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Nadiad for issuance of certificate of an amount of Rs. 5,08,836/-.

f) After realizing that the Commissioner has passed an order of issuance of recovery certificate, the present petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 12 of 2017 i.e. after a period of two years seeking condonation of delay for challenging the original award dated 15.01.2013 which was passed in W.C. Misc. Application No. 07 of 2012 in W.C. (Fatal) Application No. 01 of 2007.

g) After considering all the facts by the impugned order dated 29.03.2019, the Commissioner has rejected the application seeking condonation of delay.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is filed.

6. The afore-noted facts would indicate the lethargic and recalcitrant attitude of the present petitioner in treating the statutory proceedings initiated by the respondent. The original application filed by the respondent being W.C. (Fatal) Application No. 01 of 2007 seeking compensation was allowed by the order dated 13.06.2012. Though, the petitioner filed the written statement contesting the aforesaid application filed by the respondent, it appears that they did not appear in the proceedings, hence the Commissioner was constrained to pass the order dated 13.06.2012 in favour of the respondent.

7. After the order was passed, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 7 of 2012 in Workmen Compens