JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Respondent No. 3 despite service, omitted to appear either in person or through counsel. Hence, proceeded against ex-parte. 2. Respondent No.1 stands served through publication under an apposite notice published in “Divya Himachal”, notice whereof is placed on record. However respondent No.1 despite service standing effectuated upon her through substituted mode omits to record her appearance before this court either in person or through counsel. Hence she is proceeded against ex-parte. 3. In the impugned rendition recorded by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he fastened liability upon the insurer qua the compensation amount assessed thereunder vis-a-vis the claimants. The impugned rendition stood recorded on 17.3.2009 whereas the insurer has belatedly concerted to beget its reversal by preferring in the year 2015 an appeal therefrom before this Court. The insurer in the instant application has made a painstaking effort to purvey the good and sufficient cause which precluded it to earlier within limitation institute an appeal herebefore against the impugned judgment recorded on 17.3.2009 by the learned Commissioner. The appeal stands instituted here before with a gross besides with an inordinate delay occurring since the recording of the impugned judgment by the learned commissioner yet the immensity of delay would not constrain this Court to allow this application unless tangible material in portrayal of the insurer only now at acquiring knowledge of the impugned judgment stood evinced. However a perusal of the judgment impugned here at displays qua the insurer impleaded as respondent No.2 therein standing represented there before by its Counsel besides a receipt personificatory of the insurer in discharge of its liability fastened upon it under the impugned judgment depositing cheque No. 051589 before the learned Commissioner wherefrom an inference is erectable qua the insurer holding the apposite knowledge at the time contemporaneous to the recording of the impugned judgment by the learned Commissioner also an inference stands aroused qua its holding knowledge on 24.1.2011 whereat in discharge of its liability it deposited cheque bearing No. 051589 before the learned Commissioner. Consequently though with the insurer acquiring knowledge thereat qua the impugned judgment its yet omitting to assail it within limitation cannot at all render its belated apposite concert standing engendered by it standing beset with bonafide constraints or fetters in its relevant omission. Contrarily it stands concluded qua the insurer deliberately omitting to assail the impugned judgment. Consequently though with the insurer acquiring knowledge thereat qua the impugned judgment its yet omitting to assail it within limitation cannot at all render its belated apposite concert standing engendered by it standing beset with bonafide constraints or fetters in its relevant omission. Contrarily it stands concluded qua the insurer deliberately omitting to assail the impugned judgment. In aftermath, there is no merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed.