Bela M.Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the Nagar Nigam, Kota -appellant challenging the award dated 3.9.03 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in Compensation Petition No. 12/97, whereby the respondents -claimants have been awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 64,591/ - for the death of Rustam Khan. It appears that the respondents -claimants had filed the claim petition before the Commissioner under the provisions contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') seeking compensation for the death of Rustam Khan, who happened to be the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was alleged that the said Rustam Khan expired on 24.9.94 when he was in the employment of the appellant as a Fitter. The Commissioner after appreciating the evidence on record awarded the compensation as stated hereinabove.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel Mr. Anees Mohd. for the appellant, none is present for the respondents though duly served. It is unfortunate that the award dated 3.9.03 was sought to be challenged by the appellant after a delay of about 185 days. The said application for condonation of delay remained pending in the court for about nine years and no steps whatsoever were taken by the appellant to serve the respondents. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents were duly served. Under the circumstances the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non -prosecution alone. However, so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any question of law, much less the substantial question of law, having been involved in the appeal. Under the circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;