2026:CGHC:11814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 157 of 2025 Dujram Sahu S/o Late Jhururam Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Pahanda, Post Bhurka, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

Digitally versus signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMADate:

2 1 0 1 2 :2 6 8 .0 :0 3 6 .13 Smt. Vimlabai Sahu W/o Shri Dwarika Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o +0530 Village Pahanda, Post Bhurka, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

12/03/2026

1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act. The application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 803 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, Labour Court No. 2, Raipur, in Case No. 01/E.C. Act/2017 (Fatal), and has preferred the present appeal challenging the said order. It is further submitted that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation as the appellant was not aware of the legal procedure and could not contact his counsel for a considerable period. It is contended that after subsequently consulting his counsel, he was advised to prefer the appeal. Thereafter, he applied for and obtained the certified copy of the impugned order and, after arranging the necessary expenses, filed the present appeal. Learned counsel submits that the delay occurred due to bona fide reasons and not deliberately and therefore deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the application for condonation of delay. The explanation offered by the appellant is that he was not aware of the legal procedure and could not contact his counsel for a considerable period. However, the appellant has failed to furnish any specific or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 803 days in filing the appeal, nor has he disclosed the exact period during which he remained inactive. The reasons assigned are vague in nature and do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such a long delay.

4. In the absence of any proper and convincing explanation for the inordinate delay, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 02/2025 seeking condonation of delay is rejected.

5. Also heard on I.A. No. 03/2025, which is an application seeking exemption from depositing the mandatory amount.

6. I have considered the prayer made in I.A. No. 03/2025. As per the proviso to Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, an appeal by an employer shall not lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate from the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. The requirement of deposit is mandatory in nature and is a condition precedent for maintaining the appeal.

7. In the present case, the appellant has neither deposited the said amount nor filed any certificate from the Commissioner along with the memorandum of appeal. Therefore, in view of the statutory mandate, the prayer for exemption from depositing the mandatory amount cannot be granted.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 03/2025 is also rejected.

9. In view of the rejection of I.A. No. 02/2025 and I.A. No. 03/2025, the present appeal does not survive for consideration and is not maintainable, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

Judge

Jyoti