JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The appellant has filed an application being Misc. Case No. 146 of 2002 for condonation of the delay of 72 days in filing the present appeal. Though the ground taken in the said application is not convincing, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the insurer appellant that unless the delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merit, the insurer would suffer irreparable loss, I condone the delay subject to payment of cost of rupees five hundred to the claimant-respondent No. 1 within seven days hence. The misc. case is accordingly allowed. 2. With the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was taken up for admission and final disposal. 3. Heard Shri N. K. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as counsel for the respondents. 4. The appeal is directed against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, (hereinafter called the 'Commissioner') in W.C. Case No. 194-D/98, wherein an amount of Rs. 1,99,9027-has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 for the bodily injuries sustained by him in an accident while driving the ill-fated bus bearing registration number ORY-3297 belonging to respondent No. 2. 5. The Commissioner framed as many as four issues and while deciding the aforesaid issues come to hold that the claimant was a workman, who sustained injuries during the course of his employment and that the vehicle was duly insured with the insurer and the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Commissioner further held that the disability of the claimant-respondent No. 1 is 30% which is permanent in nature and the loss of earning capacity is 60%. The Commissioner arrived at the aforesaid finding basing upon the opinion of the treating doctor, Dr. Purnananda Ojha, who was examined as a witness being P.W. 3. 6. Under the provisions of the W. C. Act, no appeal shall lie unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In the case at hand, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which I am not inclined to entertain the appeal. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed having no merit. 8. In the case at hand, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which I am not inclined to entertain the appeal. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed having no merit. 8. Before parting with the record, I may mention that some times allegations are made that even if an insurer/employer draws notice of the Commissioner that an appeal has been filed against the award and interim application for stay is pending before this Court, the Commissioner instead of granting reasonable time to the insurer/employer to obtain order of stay, hastily disburses the awarded amount so deposited before him. In my considered opinion, it is desirable on the part of the Commissioner to grant sufficient and reasonable time to enable the insurer/employer to obtain order of stay from this Court. If within that reasonable time the insurer/ employer fails, it would be open to the Commissioner to disburse the amount so deposited to the claimant. It would be harsh if reasonable time is not granted to the insurer for the aforesaid purpose. In some cases it has also come to my notice that time granted by the Commissioner is not sufficient for the purpose. In the circumstances, this Court has felt necessary to direct as hereunder: (i) In the event an insurer/employer files an application on the date the awarded amount is deposited before the Workmen's Compensation Court with a prayer not to disburse the amount deposited on the ground that the award is under challenge in appeal and stay of disbursement of the awarded amount has been sought, or if an application is filed with an affidavit indicating therein that the insurer intends to file an appeal after obtaining the certificate in terms of Section 30 of the W. C. Act, the W.C. Court shall not disburse the awarded amount at least for a period of sixty days from that date. (ii) If the certified copy of the order or any affidavit indicating grant of stay of disbursement of the awarded amount in deposit is not filed within the aforesaid period of sixty days, the W.C. Court shall be at liberty to disburse the awarded amount. (ii) If the certified copy of the order or any affidavit indicating grant of stay of disbursement of the awarded amount in deposit is not filed within the aforesaid period of sixty days, the W.C. Court shall be at liberty to disburse the awarded amount. (iii) It will also be open to the W.C. Court to extend the period of sixty days if it is satisfied on the application of the insurer/employer that some more time is required to obtain the order of stay from this Court. 9. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Government of Orissa, for circulation thereof amongst the W.C. Courts in order to enable them to act in the manner indicated above. Any deviation of the above directions shall be treated to be an act amounting to contempt of this Court. Let the L.C.R. be sent back forthwith. Final Result : Dismissed