JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals have been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 along with an application under Section 5, Limitation Act for the condonation of delay of 162 days. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal gave composite award in respect of six cases, S B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 166/88, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhanwari Devi was filed in time challenging the award, the appellant remained under the impression that it was not necessary to file appeal in other cases and as such applications for obtaining certified copies were moved in remaining cases after the expiry of period of limitation. He further contended that delay occurred on account of the procedural wrangles and the employees of the appellant were on strike during January, 1989 and the delay was not wilful. He relied upon Land Acquisition Officer, Ananatnag v. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and G. Ramadauda v. SLAO, Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897 . 3. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the delay occurred was deliberate, no satisfactory explanation has been put forward for the delay of 162 days, even after obtaining certified copies of the award, there has been great delay on account of carelessness and negligence of the Officer-In-charge of the appellant in filing the appeals and in any view of the matter the appellant has failed to give sufficient cause for the said inordinate delay in filing the appeals. 4. Admittedly, composite award was given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner on May 5,1988, appeals were filed on February 28,1989 and there has been a delay of 162 days in filing the appeals. It is also not in dispute that the applications for obtaining certified copies in respect of the award passed in these four cases were moved on July 27, 1988 and were obtained on October 7, 1988. These appeals were filed 179 days after obtaining the certified copies of the awards. Para No. 3 of the application moved under Section 5. Limitation Act contains the reasons of this delay. These applications are similar. Para No. 3 runs as under:- "3. These appeals were filed 179 days after obtaining the certified copies of the awards. Para No. 3 of the application moved under Section 5. Limitation Act contains the reasons of this delay. These applications are similar. Para No. 3 runs as under:- "3. That because of office routine papers could not be sent at local office at Jodhpur for filing the appeals and in the month of January, 1989, the employees went on strike so appeals were not filed during the strike period. When they came to know that strike is over, they came to Jodhpur and filed these appeals." Nothing has been said in these applications as to what steps were taken in the direction of filing of applications during the months of October, November and December, 1989. Strike of the employees was in the month of January, 1989 and the certified copies of the award had already been obtained on December 7, 1988. The explanation offered in the above quoted para No. 3 of the applications is not at all satisfactory. 5. The reported cases, namely Land Acquisition Officer, Anantnag v. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and G. Ramagauda v. SLAO, Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897 , relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant have been considered in detail in State of U. P. v. Phota, AIR 1991 Allahabad 229 (DB) and their legal position has been stated in para 23 as follows:- "23. Thus the precise legal position as it emerges from these decisions can be stated as under:- (i) State and the private individual both stand on the same footing and should be treated alike. In the case of the State however, while construing the cause shown the court should be alive to the impersonal nature of State machinery loaded as it is with inherited bureaucratic methodology inspired with note-making, file-pushing and passing on the buck ethos. Thus some delay may be inevitable and this should receive a more liberal consideration and is not to be viewed in a pedantic manner. (ii) Approach in considering the cause shown should be such which would advance the cause of substantial justice rather than throttle it. (iii) The party which seeks condonation must also bear the burden of showing that despite all necessary steps being taken to file the appeal within time if failed due to cause beyond its control. (ii) Approach in considering the cause shown should be such which would advance the cause of substantial justice rather than throttle it. (iii) The party which seeks condonation must also bear the burden of showing that despite all necessary steps being taken to file the appeal within time if failed due to cause beyond its control. There must be absence of negligence or inaction and also lack of bona fide, should be attributable to it. (iv) Only on. crossing these hurdles can an application for condonation succeed. However, each case deserves to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and no strait jacket formula can be prescribed." 6. If the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is keen and anxious that its cases are properly and promptly conducted by its Officer-In-charges and Advocates and appeals are filed in time, serious view is warranted against the defaulters for the lapses on their part. 7. Accordingly, the applications moved under Section 5, Limitation Act for the condonation of delay of 162 days in filing these appeals are dismissed. The appeals are also dismissed being time barred.Appeals dismissed. *******