JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. By this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay of 327 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 7.11.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation in WC Case No. 24/2011. 2. By the aforesaid judgment and award, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,76,905.00 to the respondent No. 1 along with interest at the rate of 9% thereof from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. The petitioner has sought to explain the delay in filing the appeal in paragraph 2 of this application. Paragraph 2 reads as under: "2. That as the judgment and order was passed on 07.11.2013 the last date for filing the appeal is 06.01.2014. But since appeal has been filed on 03.11.2014 there has been as delay of 327 (three hundred twenty seven) days in filing the appeal. It is stated that after receipt of the Judgment and Order the Appellant asked the dealing Advocate at Golaghat for his opinion on 23.12.2013. But the dealing Advocate was not aware of the said letter as it delivered in his chamber in his absence. It is only when the Appellant called him up on 24.01.2014 to remind about the opinion that the dealing Advocate sent the opinion on 11.02.2014. As the Guwahati Office of the Appellant Company at that point of time did not deal with legal matters the Guwahati Office forwarded the judgment and Award to the Kolkata Office on 25.02.2014 as that point of time the legal appellate matters of the Appellate. Company in the Eastern Zone of the country was controlled by the Kolkata Office only. The Kolkata Office received the Judgment and Award on 4.3.2014 and considered the judgment and Award in detail and since it involved complicated matters of law as well as facts wanted to obtain an opinion from their advocate in the panel for High Court cases and accordingly sent the brief on 30.04.2014. The panel advocate provided the clarifications on 02.06.2014 which was received by the Kolkata Office on 09.06.2014. The panel advocate provided the clarifications on 02.06.2014 which was received by the Kolkata Office on 09.06.2014. The Kolkata Office after studying the file agreed with the recommendations of the panel advocate that there are good grounds of appeal. The Kolkata Office then sent the file to the Head Office at Mumbai on 14.7.14 alongwith their recommendations for filing an appeal. The Head Office of the Appellant Company at Mumbai agreed with the recommendation for filing the appeal and advised the Kolkata office on 11.08.2014 to go ahead with the filing of the appeal. The Kolkata Office then advised the Guwahati Office to file an appeal on 15.09.2014. After receipt of the file the same was handed over to the counsel of the Appellant Company for filing an appeal. The Advocate required a few days to prepare the appeal and the appeal could be filed on 03.11.2014 only which was resulted in a delay of 327 days." 4. The respondent No. 1 had filed objection to the application on 24.6.2016. No reply affidavit is filed thereto. 5. In support of the averments made in paragraph 2 of the condonation application, no documents have been placed on record. 6. Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is a beneficial piece of legislation. 7. Averments made in paragraph 2 would go to show that even if such statements are taken to be true, on their face value, the same disclose gross negligence in not treating the matter with the promptitude that it deserved. No doubt, a legal entity being impersonal, some amount of latitude has to be afforded to such an entity while considering an application for condonation of delay. But in today's context, the latitude to be shown cannot be stretched to such an extent that the same results in manifest injustice. In the instance case, Calcutta Office received the judgment and award on 4.3.2014 and if the case involved complicated questions of law in their perception, as stated, it is not understood why the brief had to be sent for obtaining legal opinion almost after two months. Even after receipt of the legal opinion, assuming that the same was given after a month, there was procrastination for no justifiable reason in forwarding the papers to Mumbai office only on 14.7.2014 to obtain approval. Even after receipt of the legal opinion, assuming that the same was given after a month, there was procrastination for no justifiable reason in forwarding the papers to Mumbai office only on 14.7.2014 to obtain approval. Mumbai office took almost a month to give necessary advice to file appeal and thereafter, the Calcutta office also took one month to advice the Guwahati office to file the appeal on 15.9.2014. There is a stoic silence with regard to what transpired from 15.9.2014 at Guwahati office. It is not mentioned what steps were taken by the Guwahati office to hand over the brief to its counsel or when it was handed over. All that is said is that the appeal was filed on 3.11.2014 do not consider that this is a case where the appellant has shown sufficient cause, even when given widest berth, for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Taking that view, this petition is dismissed.