JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants.The history of this case reveals apathy by which the undesired litigation is prolonged by the State and that too at all the stages it remained negligent in conducting the cases and the cost is to be paid by the public exchequer.A claim was filed by applicant-respondent No. 2, Kauda before the Workman's Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "the Act of 1923") alleging that his son Punja, who was employed under the Assistant Engineer, PHED, Sub-Division, Gaddi, District Banswara. While he was working at the well on 16.6.94 during the course of putting on and off the motor fixed in the well, he fell in the well and died. At the time of his death, he was receiving Rs.832/- per month and claimed the compensation of Rs.71,948/- under the Act of 1923 as Punja has died on account of accident which occurred during and in the course of employment.After service of the notice of the application instead of putting in appearance the respondents decided to proceed with the litigation by sending telegrams to the Commissioner seeking adjournment after adjournment. In the first instance, after granting a few adjournments, the Commissioner was left with no option but to proceed ex-parte and an order was made ex-parte on 30th January, 1997 allowing the claim filed by the applicant.Woken up by this ex-parte order, an application was moved under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 30th January, 1997 which was beyond the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. An 25 application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed.The said applications were allowed. The ex-parte order was recalled. The appellants filed reply to the claim and led evidence.However, in the course of evidence, it was admitted by the non-applicants that the deceased Punjab who was employed under the non-applicant No. 2 died during the course of employment. In this connection, reference has been made statement made by PW-4, Mana and the statements of the Assistant Engineer that he was employed on muster roll for digging the well. However, he pleaded ignorance about the manner in which he died because he was on leave on the date the accident was occurred. The wages which the deceased were drawing at the time of his death were also admitted by the Assistant Engineer. 2. However, he pleaded ignorance about the manner in which he died because he was on leave on the date the accident was occurred. The wages which the deceased were drawing at the time of his death were also admitted by the Assistant Engineer. 2. In view of this admitted case by the Assistant Engineer under whom the deceased was employed, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner allowed the claim keeping into consideration that the deceased was 25 years age at the time of his death and Rs.20,000/- was awarded by way of penalty and on the principal amount of award 12% interest was also allowed in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1923. This award was made by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on 27.5.99.An appeal was filed against that order on 24.12.99, which was barred by 159 days alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.The learned Single Judge having perused the usual calendar placed by way of additional affidavit for spreading over the period of delay in movement of file from one table to another, did not consider it to be a sufficient cause in which could have prevented the appellants from filing the appeal within limitation and rejected the application.Against the said order, this appeal is preferred which was again barred by time. It was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, s this Court allowed the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act on 16.2.2004.In the facts and circumstances noticed by us above. it is apparent that neither it is a case in which there could be any administrative exigency except gross negligence on the part of the appellants to prosecute their litigation nor on the admitted facts, there is any case on merit to proceed further except to prolong this case any further.The appeal is dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******