S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) BY this civil application, prayer has been made by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 176 days caused in filing of the appeal against the award dated 30. 6. 1997 made in Fatal Case No. 20/92 by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, at Valsad. Under this award, the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, at Valsad awarded Rs. 86764/as compensation together with the interest thereon to the claimant. In addition to this amount, he further awarded to the claimant 50% of the said amount as penalty. The applicant-appellant in the appeal, has challenged that part of the award whereunder 50% amount of compensation was ordered to be paid as penalty by him to the claimant. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed under Sec. 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. Sec. 30 provides that the appeal before this Court against the award of the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act does lie only where any substantial question of law arises therein. For the purpose of considering this civil application for condonation of delay, I consider it to be appropriate to consider the merits of the appeal also. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant-appellant contended that the Commissioner under Workmans Compensation Act has committed serious error in awarding 50% of amount of compensation as penalty to the claimant. Carrying this contention further it is urged that before any order imposing penalty is passed for non deposit of the amount of compensation in time, notice has to be given to the opponent-applicant-appellant and as that notice has not been given the award to the extent it relates to penalty deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. ( 4 ) IN this civil application, the applicant-appellant has failed to give out any good or cogent explanation for this long delay of 176 days caused in filing of the appeal. ( 4 ) IN this civil application, the applicant-appellant has failed to give out any good or cogent explanation for this long delay of 176 days caused in filing of the appeal. In para-5 of the application, the explanation for delay in filing of this appeal has been furnished as under:"the applicant is youngest in the family and he is residing in a joint family but due to family problems and due to strain relations with his elder brother, he is residing separately, since last about one year and the doors of the house of his elder brother are closed for him, and therefore, he was not aware of the outcome of the aforesaid case. He further stated that though the aforesaid communication was received, his elder brother did not bother to inform him but when the Police came to serve the summons, his brother gave the whereabouts of the applicant and on 2nd June, 1998, the applicant was served with the summons and at that point of time, with the intervention of the relatives, he inquired about the same at the place of his brother, and then he received the copy of the order and thereafter, he contacted the local lawyer of Surat and thereafter engaged an advocate in ahemdabad and he approached this Court". ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the copy of the impugned award was sent to the applicant-appellant on 4. 10. 1997 by the office of the Commissioner under Workmens compensation Act. That copy was sent to him at his address given in the claim application. On this address, notice of the claim application had been served upon the applicant-appellant on which there is no dispute. From the judgment and award of the commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act, I find that the applicant-appellant despite of service of notice of the claim application has not put appearance before it nor he filed any reply to the claim application. So the applicant-appellant has not contested the claim application despite of the fact that notice thereof has been received by him. He has also not filed the appeal within limitation though the award has been recieved by him in the month of October, 1997. It is very easy now to make out all these averments in this civil application. These averments are made for his own benefit on which no reliance can be placed. He has also not filed the appeal within limitation though the award has been recieved by him in the month of October, 1997. It is very easy now to make out all these averments in this civil application. These averments are made for his own benefit on which no reliance can be placed. Apart from this, if we go by the affidavit filed in support of this civil application I find that the averments made in para Nos. 4 and 5 thereof are verified to be true to his knowledge, belief, information and legal advise. On the basis of such affidavit otherwise also, it is difficult to believe what the applicant-appellant stated in the application. Moreover, in support of these averments, the applicant-appellant has not produced any cogent and satisfactory evidence. When the amount of award has been sought to be recovered as land revenue, the applicant-appellant to avoid the payment of the amount of penalty to the claimant appears to have filed this appeal. From the note filed for early circulation of the matter in the Court, I find that only when the proceedings have been started for recovery of the amount of penalty awarded under the impugned award as land revenue, the applicant-appellant thought of filing of this appeal. Otherwise at no point of time he has contested the matter. When he has not chosen to contest the matter before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, he may otherwise has no right to file the appeal. He felt contended that whatever liability comes of payment of the amount of the compensation, it has to be paid by the insurance company. Insurance company though paid the amount of compensation but so far as the penalty is concerned, it is the liability only of the owner-employer under the Workmens compensation Act, 1923. ( 6 ) LIMITATION for filing of the appeal against the award of the Commissioner for workmens Compensation Act under Sec. 30 of the Act, 1923 is of 60 days. This short period of limitation is provided under the Act, 1923 for the apparent reasons that the claim matter attains the finality at an early date. Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, though made applicable to this Act but by this applicability alone it does not mean that the delay in filing of the appeal should be condone merely on asking of the aggrieved party. Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, though made applicable to this Act but by this applicability alone it does not mean that the delay in filing of the appeal should be condone merely on asking of the aggrieved party. The applicant-appellant has to furnish satisfactory explanation for this delay to the satisfaction of the Court and unless it is done, the delay cannot be condoned. In the present case, no explanation, worth the name, put forth by the applicant-appellant to the satisfaction of this court for this inordinate delay and as such this delay in filing of the appeal cannot be condoned. It is fruitful here to make reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1997 (7) SCC 556 wherein the Apex Court has held :5. This can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay. In the reply filed to the application seeking condonation of delay by the appellant in the High Court, it is asserted that after the judgment and decree was pronounced by the learned Sub-Judge, Kollam on 30. 10. 1993, the scope for filing of the appeal was examined by the District Government Pleader, Special Law Officer, Law secretary and the Advocate General and in accordance with their opinion, it was decided that there was no scope for filing the appeal but later on, despite the opinion referred to above, the appeal was filed as late as on 18. 1. 1996 without disclosing why it was being filed. The High Court does not appear to have examined the reply filed by the appellant as reference to the same is conspicuous by its absence from the order. We are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, any explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory one had been offered by the respondent-State for condonation of the inordinate delay of 565 days. 6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper or judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper or judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs. ( 7 ) THE Courts are concerned not only to protect and look to the rights of the appellant and consequent loss or sufferings to him but the balance of corresponding loss and suffering to other party to lis has to be kept in mind. By not filing the appeal within prescribed period of limitation, a valuable right is accrued to the other side which normally the court should not be permitted to be taken away, more so when the matter pertains to the claim of compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. As said by the Apex Court in the case of P. K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, (Supra), the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds in a given case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the equities tilt in favour of the claimant-respondent and the condonation of delay in filing of this appeal will certainly harsh to the respondent. ( 8 ) I have also gone on the merits of the matter. So far as the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner of Workmens Compensation, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the applicant-appellant has not felt aggrieved of this part of the award as it is the insurance company who will pay this amount and it has in fact been paid to the claimant- respondent, to the best of his information and knowledge. The appeal is only directed against the part of the award of the Commissioner of Workmens compensation where the penalty for late payment of amount of compensation has been awarded against the applicant-appellant. This penalty amount does not automatically flows from the main liability incurred by the insured employer under the Workmens compensation Act, 1923. The appeal is only directed against the part of the award of the Commissioner of Workmens compensation where the penalty for late payment of amount of compensation has been awarded against the applicant-appellant. This penalty amount does not automatically flows from the main liability incurred by the insured employer under the Workmens compensation Act, 1923. The insurance company is therefore not liable to reimburse the employer the applicant-appellant herein qua his statutory liability of additional amount which is added to the principal amount of compensation by way of penalty to be levied on him under the circumstance contemplated by Sec. 4-A (3) (b) of the Act, 1923. Reference may have to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg vs. Prem devi, (1997) 8 SCC 1 . ( 9 ) SECTION 4-A (3) (b) of the Act, 1923 provides that the compensation under Sec. 4 shall be paid within one month from the date it fell due. Sub-sec. (2) thereof lays down that where the employer does not accept the liability of compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the event of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or paid to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. Sub-sec. (3) is the most material, relevant and important provision of sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 for the purpose of disposal of this civil application and the appeal. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 provides that where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct that in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due together with it, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty. This Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4-A has been amended by Act of 30 of 1995 vide Sec. 5 thereof w. e. f. 15. 9. 1995. This Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4-A has been amended by Act of 30 of 1995 vide Sec. 5 thereof w. e. f. 15. 9. 1995. This amended provision provides that where the employer made default in payment of compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct that the employer shall in addition to the amount of compensation pay to employee interest thereon at the rate of 12% p. a. or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette and further, if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding 50% of such amount by way of penalty. Proviso to this sub-section provides that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed. Sub-sec. 3-A which has been substituted in Sec. 4-A by the Act 30 of 1995 is relevant and I have to refer the same here. This sub-section lays down that the interest payable under Sub-sec. (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependant, as the case may be, and the penalty shall be credited to the state Government. In this case, the accident was on the date much earlier to 15. 9. 1995, the day on which Sub-sec. (3) as amended by the Act 30 of 1995 and Sub-sec. (3-A) had come into force. However, it is not necessary for this court to decide in this case whether the amended provision of Sub-sec. (3) and inserted Sub-sec. (3-A) of Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 in retrospective in operation or not as on merits otherwise also I do not find any case in favour of the applicant-appellant. Whatever may be the contents of provisions as contained in Sub-sec. (3) unamended or Sub-sec. (3) as amended of the Act, 1923 but one thing is clear that the Commissioner under Workmans Compensation has power under this provision to direct the employer to pay further sum not exceeding 50% of the amount of compensation by way of penalty. By amendment of Sub-sec. (3) unamended or Sub-sec. (3) as amended of the Act, 1923 but one thing is clear that the Commissioner under Workmans Compensation has power under this provision to direct the employer to pay further sum not exceeding 50% of the amount of compensation by way of penalty. By amendment of Sub-sec. (3) of the Act, 1923, two vital changes have been brought into or incorporated in Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923. First a provision has been made for giving of the notice to show cause to the employer before the court gives direction for payment of penalty. Second radical change has been brought by substitution of Sub-sec. (3-A) to Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 for the amount of penalty which has been directed to be paid by the employer for delayed payment of the due arrears of compensation shall be credited to the State Government. So as per this amended sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 the amount of penalty which is directed to be paid by the employer to the workman, the workman will not be entitled for it. If we go by this provision, prima-facie it appears that the amended provision of Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 cannot be taken to have retrospective effect. However, as stated earlier, I am not called upon to decide this point in this appeal but this clue sufficiently flows from the provision of Sub-sec. (3-A) as inserted in Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 w. e. f. 15. 9. 1995. Otherwise also it is hardly material for the employer whether it goes to the workman or to the State government, he is concerned with that he should be directed to part with this amount of penalty otherwise than as law provides. ( 10 ) IN this case learned counsel for the applicant-appellant admits that the accident occurred on 9. 5. 1991 and notice thereof has been given to the employer on 26. 8. 1991. The claimant filed the case before the Commissioner under Workmans Compensation act on 23. 10. 1991. The counsel for the applicant-appellant does not dispute that the amount of compensation payable to the claimant under Sec. 4 of the Act, 1923 has been deposited by the insurance company on 28. 8. 1992. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant is based on proviso to Sub-sec. 10. 1991. The counsel for the applicant-appellant does not dispute that the amount of compensation payable to the claimant under Sec. 4 of the Act, 1923 has been deposited by the insurance company on 28. 8. 1992. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant is based on proviso to Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 as inserted by Act 30 of 1995 w. e. f. 15. 9. 1995. The contention is that the award of the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act impugned in this appeal to the extent it relates to the direction given for the payment of 50% of the amount of compensation by way of penalty vitiates on the ground that same has been made without giving any notice to the appellant. I have given my thoughtful consideration to this contention of the learned counsel. ( 11 ) IN the proceedings before the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation act it is not in dispute that the applicant- appellant even after service of the notice of the proceedings has not put appearance either personally or through an advocate. He has not filed reply to the claim application of the claimants. As he has not put his appearance either personally or through his advocate during the proceedings before the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act no question does arise of producing any oral or documentary evidence. In para-2 of the award, the Commissioner under Workmens compensation Act clearly noted that the opponent No. 1, the applicant-appellant herein, despite of the service of notice of the proceedings, has not put appearance nor filed any reply. So the proceedings were taken against his ex-parte. ( 12 ) IT is not the case of the applicant-appellant before this Court that the notices of the proceedings were not served upon him. So it is a case where the applicant-appellant has not availed of the opportunity afforded to him to contest the claim application of the claimant-respondent No. 1 on all the grounds including the ground that additional amount could not have been added to principal amount of compensation by way of penalty under sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923. So it is a case where the applicant-appellant has not availed of the opportunity afforded to him to contest the claim application of the claimant-respondent No. 1 on all the grounds including the ground that additional amount could not have been added to principal amount of compensation by way of penalty under sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923. The Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act, before additional amount is added to the principal amount of compensation by way of penalty to be levied on the employer under the circumstances contemplated by Sec. 4-A (3) (b) of the Act, 1923 to show cause, notice to the employer to be given to afford him reasonable opportunity to show cause why on account of some justification on his part for the delay in payment of compensation amount he is not liable for this penalty. However, if ultimately, the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act after giving reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause takes the view that there is no justification for such delay on the part of the employer and because of his unjustified delay and due to his own personal fault he is held responsible for the delay, then the penalty would get imposed on him, that would add a further sum up to 50% of the principal amount by way of penalty to be made good by the defaulting employer. See Ved prakash vs. Prem Devi (Supra ). There may be three categories of cases with reference to which this question of giving of notice under proviso to Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 4-A of the act, 1923 as amended by the Act of 30 of 1995 needs to be examined. First category of case is where the employer in response to notice of claim application put appearance and contested the claim application on all the grounds inclusive of the ground that the claimant cannot be awarded any amount of additional compensation as penalty for the reasons or the explanation furnished for the delay in payment of the amount of compensation to the employee. Second category of case is where the reply to the claim application is filed but therein explanation for delay in making of the payment of compensation due have not been stated. Third category of case is where the employer though has been served with the notice of the claim proceedings, he has not put appearance. Second category of case is where the reply to the claim application is filed but therein explanation for delay in making of the payment of compensation due have not been stated. Third category of case is where the employer though has been served with the notice of the claim proceedings, he has not put appearance. It is not in dispute that in the claim application, the claimant-respondent No. I has made prayer for grant of interest and the penalty. It is also not in dispute that the applicant-appellant has received the copy of the claim application along with the notice of the claim application. In this case, the applicant-appellant has notice of the claim of the claimant-respondent wherein he prayed for awarding of the additional amount of compensation as penalty for delayed payment of amount of compensation fell due and interest. This amount of compensation due either could have been paid by the applicant-appellant himself or on his behalf by the insurance company. In the present case, the insurance company has deposited the amount of compensation on 20. 8. 1992 but it has not deposited within the period prescribed for doing the same. This delay of about 11 months in depositing of the amount from the date of notice of the accident and about 10 months after filing of the claim application is not explained by the applicant-appellant- employer. Learned counsel for the applicant- appellant only on technical grounds is challenging the award but in substance on merits he is unable to make out any case in his favour. He has not furnished any explanation why the applicant- appellant has not put appearance before Commissioner and furnished the explanation for delay in payment of compensation by giving reply to the claim application wherein specific prayer undisputedly has been made by the claimant for direction for payment of penalty in his favour. The matter is not ended here. He has not produced himself in the witness-box nor produced any other evidence oral or documentary to furnish any explanation for this delay in paying or depositing of the amount of compensation fell due within prescribed time. Giving of the notice under proviso to Sub-sec. The matter is not ended here. He has not produced himself in the witness-box nor produced any other evidence oral or documentary to furnish any explanation for this delay in paying or depositing of the amount of compensation fell due within prescribed time. Giving of the notice under proviso to Sub-sec. (3-A) of Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 or as amended by the Act 30 of 1995 has a special purpose i. e. , to provide an opportunity to the employer to satisfy to the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act that there is justification for delay in making of the payment or depositing of the amount of compensation fell due within prescribed time. To put it other way, if it is shown that the employer has good cause or explanation for the delay caused or made in payment or depositing of the compensation due, Commissioner under Workmens Compensation may not impose any penalty. This is what clearly borne out from the expression "if in the opinion of the Commissioner, there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding 50% of such amount shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty" in the statute. The reasons or grounds for not making the payment or depositing the compensation due within the stipulated period can only be in the personal knowledge of the employer alone and none else. It is a statutory requirement made in proviso 3 of Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 as amended vide Act 30 of 1995, to afford this opportunity before issuing direction for payment of penalty, the Commissioner is put under an obligation to give notice to the concerned employer. Where explanation is furnished the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act has to record his reasons for coming to the conclusion that there was no justification for delay in making the payment of compensation fell due and thereby provides an opportunity to appellate court to see whether or not his order is justified and which satisfies the test of objectivity. ( 13 ) THE larger question which falls for the consideration of the Court in the present case is whether on the facts of the case it can be said that the applicant-appellant has been condemned unheard ? ( 13 ) THE larger question which falls for the consideration of the Court in the present case is whether on the facts of the case it can be said that the applicant-appellant has been condemned unheard ? The second question which calls for consideration of this court is that whether in this case despite of the fact that the applicant-appellant served with a notice of claim proceedings and wherein very specific prayer in the claim application has been made for direction to the employer to pay the penalty, the employer has not put appearance and contested the matter still he is justified to make the grievance before this court in appeal that before issuing direction for the payment of penalty, he has not been heard ? To award the penalty is a discretion of the Commissioner and it may not be interfered with in the appeal more so where under Sec. 30 of the Act, 1923, the appeal in this court against the award of Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act does lie only when a substantial question of law arises in the case. One more important fact has to be kept in mind while deciding the grievance of the nature as made by the applicant-appellant in this appeal that it is always an endeavour of the employer to see that the workman may not get compensation and particularly penalty adopts the tactics so that the payment of the amount of compensation or the penalty or both may be deferred. The insurance company is not liable for the payment of penalty as imposed by the commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act in exercise of its power as conferred under Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 as it is not the part of compensation payable to the workman for the injury sustained by him in accident arising out of and in the course of employment. In the context of this legal position this matter has to be examined by the court. As the applicant-appellant has workmen compensation policy naturally on accident, if any, arises at his factory premises in which injury is caused to any employee workman arising out of and in the course of his employment, the amount of compensation payable to him under the Act has to be paid by the insurance company. As the applicant-appellant has workmen compensation policy naturally on accident, if any, arises at his factory premises in which injury is caused to any employee workman arising out of and in the course of his employment, the amount of compensation payable to him under the Act has to be paid by the insurance company. In such case it is obligatory on the part of the employer to immediately bring this fact to the notice of the concerned insurance company so that the insurance company may deposit the amount of compensation within the period as provided for the same under the Act, 1923 and thereby it may deem to be by necessary legal fiction as if the amount has been deposited by the employer himself in time and consequently there may not be any order against the employer of payment of penalty. The burden to furnish explanation for delay caused in making payment of the amount of compensation to the employee workman does lie on the employer and for that a notice is provided to be given to him under the amended Act. Award of the additional amount of compensation by way of penalty for delayed payment of compensation fell due certainly puts financial burden on the employer and it is also by way of penalty so to avoid any prejudice may not caused to employer, notice is provided to be given to him to afford him an opportunity to furnish the explanation for the delayed payment of the amount of compensation. But in this case where the applicant-appellant has a notice of proceedings in which the prayer has also been made by the claimant- respondent No. 1 for awarding of the penalty and he kept himself away from the proceedings and permitted the Commissioner to proceed ex-pane against him before imposing the penalty, notice is still required to be given by the Commissioner to the employer. It is understandable where the prayer for penalty has not been made in the claim application by the employee and the employer where he has workmens compensation policy decides to remain absent in the proceedings as ultimately it is liability of the insurance company to make the payment of the awarded amount of the compensation other than penalty. It is understandable where the prayer for penalty has not been made in the claim application by the employee and the employer where he has workmens compensation policy decides to remain absent in the proceedings as ultimately it is liability of the insurance company to make the payment of the awarded amount of the compensation other than penalty. But where there is specific prayer made for the payment of penalty for delayed payment or deposit of the amount of compensation if the employer is not putting appearance and contesting the case insistence for giving of the notice to him by the Commissioner of Workmens Compensation before he passes the direction for payment of penalty will result in causing prejudice to the claimant employee rather than to the employer. Unscrupulous employers under this technical plea will conveniently get the deferment of the payment of the amount of penalty. That is not the object and purpose of the Act and particularly proviso to Sub-sec. (30 of Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923. The employers who made the attempt to delay the payment of penalty on such technical ground cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the provisions in the way in which it is attempted to be taken in the present appeal. ( 14 ) EVERY violation of the provisions as contained in the statue for giving of notice of hearing before passing an adverse order to the person concerned may not of any substance in a given case and merely on this ground the order passed adverse to him may not vitiate. This provision of giving of notice under Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 even if it is taken to be mandatory still where the substantial compliance thereof has been made or where the nonviolation of the same does not caused any prejudice to the party in the given case the court may decline to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal. It is not in dispute that the appellant was served with the notice of claim proceedings filed by the claimant-respondent. Despite service of notice, he has chosen not to contest the proceedings. It is undisputed fact that in the claim application, the claimant-respondent very specifically pleaded for awarding in their favour by the Commissioner the penalty for delayed payment of the amount of compensation. Despite service of notice, he has chosen not to contest the proceedings. It is undisputed fact that in the claim application, the claimant-respondent very specifically pleaded for awarding in their favour by the Commissioner the penalty for delayed payment of the amount of compensation. In the present case its can not be said that the appellant has been taken by surprise by the award of the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act to the extent it relates to the awarding of 50% of the amount of compensation as penalty to the claimant-respondent. In the facts aforesaid this case does not fall in the category where the appellant has no notice of the fact that in the case the Commissioner may award the penalty for non or delayed payment of the amount of compensation to the claimant-respondent. The substantial compliance of this provision may be taken to have been made by the Commissioner under the Workmens compensation Act in this case. ( 15 ) EVERY violation of principles of natural justice or a provision of giving of notice to the party concerned is there in the given case, even if the contention raised has some substance, still the Court may decline to interfere in the impugned order where it finds no failure of justice caused to the litigant. Provision for giving of notice before the commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act awarded penalty for non or delayed payment of compensation to the employer is to provide him an opportunity to explain or furnish the cause for the delay in payment of compensation or non-payment thereof. Only when he furnishes an explanation or a cause to the satisfaction of the commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act the authority may relieve him of the liability to pay the penalty for delayed or non payment of the amount of compensation to the claimant. As stated earlier, keeping in view this object and purpose of notice to be given to the appellant in the proceedings we have to consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be taken that the violation of this provision by the commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act has resulted in failure of justice to the appellant. First of all, it is not out of context to state at the cost of repetition that despite of having notice of this prayer made in the claim application, the appellant has chosen not to furnish any explanation for the non payment of the amount of compensation before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation. Even in this appeal also, the appellant has not furnished any satisfactory explanation or cause for non or delayed payment of the amount of compensation. Whatever explanation and cause furnished is hardly of any substance in the present case and on which this benevolent provision cannot be allowed to be defeated. In the matter of this nature, the appellate court while dealing with such a technical contention and plea raised challenging the award of Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act has to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Act and the beneficiaries of the provisions of the said Act. If we go by this consideration I am of the opinion that otherwise also it is not a fit case were any indulgence deserves to be given to the appellant. The accident was well within the knowledge of the appellant and instead of complying with the provisions of the Act, 1923, and more particularly of Secs. 4 and 4-A he felt contended to left to the claimants to approach to the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation even for getting their just and reasonable claim. Further conduct of the appellant to show scant regard to the proceedings initiated by the claimant-respondent before the Commissioner under the workmens Compensation Act and despite of the service of notice thereof he has chosen not to appear before the said authority speaks about his motives and intentions. It is understandable and if it would have been done some sympathies or equities would have been there in his favour in this Court i. e. , where he would have informed to the insurance company of this accident and reminded it of its contractual obligation to indemnify the liability of insured of the payment of compensation to the claimant-respondent but that has also not been done in the present case. ( 16 ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the facts of this case and the conduct of the appellant, it cannot be said to be a case where the alleged technical breach of the provisions of Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 resulted in any failure of justice in the present case to the appellant. ( 17 ) THE purpose of giving of notice, it is submitted at the post of repetition, is to afford an opportunity to employer to furnish his explanation to the satisfaction of the commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act for the delay made in payment or deposit of the amount of compensation fell due. This Court time and again during the course of arguments asked the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant to furnish what were the reasons and the explanation for this delay in deposit or payment of the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the applicant-appellant is asked to read from the memo of appeal whether the applicant-appellant has furnished any explanation good, bad or indifferent for this delay in payment or deposit of the amount of compensation. He is unable to refer any paragraph from the memo of appeal where the applicant-appellant has given any explanation for this delay made in payment or deposit of the amount of compensation. From the memo of appeal I find that the applicant-appellant has stated that his vehicle was insured and the insurance company was appearing before the Commissioner, he was under bonafide belief that the compensation is to be paid by the Insurance Company. I fail to see how this statement made is having any relevance to the matter in issue more so where the copy of impugned award was sent to him by the office of the Commissioner under Workmens compensation Act in which there is clear direction for payment of the amount of penalty by the applicant-appellant. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant-appellant sought to raise the contention that as the amount of penalty is also to be paid, what the applicant-appellant was under impression, by the insurance company, the applicant-appellant has not put appearance before the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act and not furnished any explanation. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant-appellant sought to raise the contention that as the amount of penalty is also to be paid, what the applicant-appellant was under impression, by the insurance company, the applicant-appellant has not put appearance before the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act and not furnished any explanation. On being asked by this Court to the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that whether any notice has been given by the applicant-appellant to the insurance company for making the payment of amount of compensation he has frankly conceded that it is not done. It is understandable that in such matter the liability is of the insurance company and insurance company has rightly been made responsible of the payment of compensation and interest but to save himself from the clutches of the provisions as contained in Sec. 4-A of the Act, 1923 for the payment of penalty, it is the duty of the employer to see that the insurance company deposits the amount of compensation fell due within stipulated period. That exercise has to be undertaken by the employer and if it would have been taken and still the insurance company is not depositing the amount of compensation in time there may be some justification in the approach of the employer and it may be a point for consideration but it is not the case here. The employer should have taken further care that on the claim application being filed, he is to point out this fact to the notice of the Commissioner and to pray to give the direction to the insurance company to deposit the amount of compensation without any loss of time. That has also not been done. So otherwise also it is a case where the applicant-appellant has not furnished any explanation and without there being any explanation for this delay in depositing of the amount otherwise also no useful purpose would be served in case on this technical plea raised in this appeal, the award of commissioner under Workmens Compensation should Act be set aside to the extent it relates to the awarding of the penalty under Sec 4-A of the Act, 1923 and the matter has to be remanded back to the said authority. In this case it cannot be said or accepted that any prejudice is resulted to the applicant-appellant for want of notice by the commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act before awarding penalty as provided under Sec 4-A of the Act, 1923 for delayed deposit or payment of the amount of compensation. As the appeal itself has no merits otherwise also no useful purpose would be served to condone the delay in filing thereof. ( 19 ) IN the result, this civil application fails and the same is dismissed. ( 20 ) CONSEQUENT, upon the dismissal of this civil application, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. .