JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Ms S Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. DC Nath, learned Addl. GA, appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employees compensation Act, 1923 from the order dated 14.08.2014 delivered in Civil Misc 35 of 2014 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. According to the appellants, Sushil Ranjan Das, who was working as the Senior Helper under the Power Department, Government of Tripura, met with a fatal accident on 23.11.2003 when he was repairing the electric line stationing him on the top of an electric pole. During that time, one live wire snapped and that touched the body of the said Senior Helper. He got dangerously electrocuted. He was brought to the GBP Hospital, Agartala for treatment but he succumbed to the said injury on 29.01.2014. 4. According to the appellants, on countless occasions they persuaded the respondents to provide them adequate compensation but that was not given. At one point of time, they came to know on 15.07.2013, whereas the accident took place on 22.11.2003, that they can get compensation for the said fatal accident and accordingly, they instituted the application for compensation under Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act for adequate compensation for the death of the said Senior Helper. 5. The respondents, however, by filing the objection have admitted the death and providing the compassionate appointment to the appellant No.2, under the government scheme but they have not admitted the accident or the episode that has been narrated by the appellants. 6. Having perused the petition filed under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, this Court does not find any medical records enclosed with the said application. There is no reasonable explanation for such inordinate delay. 7. Ms. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel has strenuously submitted that the said application for condoning the delay has been rejected mechanically, inasmuch as, adequate latitude could have been shown when the claim was being made under a social welfare legislation, namely, Employees Compensation Act. 8. The main stay of the analogy as provided in the order dated 14.08.2014 can be had from the following paragraph: “I have considered the rival submissions. 8. The main stay of the analogy as provided in the order dated 14.08.2014 can be had from the following paragraph: “I have considered the rival submissions. It cannot be disputed by the petitioners that they have miserably failed to explain as to how the delay of seven years seven months twenty two days was caused in filing the case. In fact, no sincere effort has been made to explain the delay. The delay being huge it is of course difficult to explain the delay with reasonable reasons. Probably this is the reason why no effort is undertaken in that line.” 9. Ms. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the accidental death being admitted by the employer, the Commissioner ought to have condoned the said delay to grant relief’s under the beneficial social legislation. 10. From the other side, Mr. DC Nath, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents has categorically stated that there is nothing on record to show whether there was at all any accident or how the said accident had occurred. In this regard, he has also referred to para 6 of the written objection filed by the respondents to contend that these submissions have been made only to raise the grounds as assigned in the petition for condonation of delay. 11. Even in the petition for condonation, no better particulars were provided to persuade the Court for exercising its discretion. So casually the petition has been drafted, no prudent person even would believe that the delay was not a deliberate or intentional one, even if the case is assumed to be a genuine one. The scope under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act is very narrow. Only on the ground of substantial question of law such appeal can be admitted. 12. No legal infirmity forming a substantial question of law for admitting this appeal having been found this appeal stands dismissed. 13. It is to be mentioned before parting with records that the Court has authority to extend the latitude in matters relating to beneficial social legislation but merely referring to such legislation someone cannot come to the Court for condoning a huge and inordinate delay in order to resurrect a stale matter. No order as to costs. Send down the LCRs.