JUDGMENT AND ORDER : K.M. Thaker, J. Heard Mr. Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Parghi, learned advocate for the respondents. 1.1 Rule. Mr. Parghi, learned advocate has waived service of notice of Rule for the respondents. 1.2 With consent of Mr. Parghi, learned advocate for the respondents, present petition is taken-up for final hearing and decision today. 2. In present petition, the petitioner employer has prayed, inter alia, that:- "14(b) Be pleased to quashed and set-aside the order passed by the W.C. Commissioner, Ahmedabad in W.C. Misc. Application No.1/2014 and further to quashed and set-aside the order passed by the W.C. Commissioner in W.C. Case No. 100/2002 and further to give all opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case by restoring W.C. Case No.100/2002." 3. Pursuant to fatal accident, the heirs/legal representatives of deceased employee filed claim application for workman's compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act ["the Act" for short] and claimed, by way of compensation, Rs. 4,42,740/- and penalty in accordance with the provisions under the Act. The said claim application came to be filed in 2002. 3.1 After neglecting the proceedings for long time, the opponent employer subsequently appeared before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ["the Commissioner" for short]. In the Court of Commissioner, the opponent employer accepted the notice of claim application No. 100 of 2002. The opponent employer engaged and availed service of advocate, however, subsequently, the opponent employer did not file any reply or any document and did not lead evidence (oral or documentary). 3.2 After having accepted the notice of the proceedings, the opponent again neglected the proceedings. 3.3 Ultimately, after passage of almost 11 years (during which period the employer did not attend the proceedings before the Commissioner), the award came to be passed whereby the Commissioner directed present petitioner to pay Rs. 4,39,900/- towards compensation with interest at 6% and 20% by way of penalty. 3.4 For quite sometime, the employer ignored the said award. 3.5 Subsequently, the employer filed Misc. Application alongwith application seeking condonation of delay and sought restoration of claim application No.100 of 2002. 3.6 After hearing the parties and after considering the submissions by present petitioner, the Commissioner was not satisfied with the explanation, rather excuse, offered by the employer (for not attending the proceedings for almost 11 years) and therefore, the Commissioner rejected the Misc. Application. Application alongwith application seeking condonation of delay and sought restoration of claim application No.100 of 2002. 3.6 After hearing the parties and after considering the submissions by present petitioner, the Commissioner was not satisfied with the explanation, rather excuse, offered by the employer (for not attending the proceedings for almost 11 years) and therefore, the Commissioner rejected the Misc. Application. 3.7 Feeling aggrieved by said order dated 3.3.2015 whereby Misc. Application No.1 of 2014 came to be rejected, the employer filed present petition after almost 19 months. 4. Mr. Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that the employee who received the Court's notice, did not bring it to the notice of the employer and therefore, the proceedings could not be attended, however, subsequently, he i.e. the employer had appeared before the Commissioner and accepted the notice and also engaged service of advocate. The learned advocate for the petitioner alleged that the learned advocate did not inform the petitioner about the proceedings or the developments in the proceedings of said compensation case and therefore, the petitioner could not attend the proceedings before the Court. Mr. Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay reasonable cost upto Rs. 25,000/- and the ex-parte award may be set aside and opportunity to prove the defence may be granted. 5. Mr. Parghi, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that for 11 years, the employer neglected the proceedings and even after the Commissioner passed the award, the petitioner did not take any steps immediately and after considerable delay, the petitioner filed Misc. Application to seek restoration of the proceedings and also filed application for condonation of delay. According to learned advocate for the respondents, in view of the conduct of the employer, the petition may not be allowed. 6. I have considered rival submissions and material available on record as well as the award dated 21.6.2013 passed in claim application No.100 of 2002 as well as the order dated 3.3.2015 passed by Commissioner in Misc. Application No.1 of 2014. 7. From the narration of relevant facts, it has emerged that the facts involved in present case are gross. 7.1 Actually, this case does not deserve any indulgence by the Court and the relief prayed for does not deserve to be entertained. Application No.1 of 2014. 7. From the narration of relevant facts, it has emerged that the facts involved in present case are gross. 7.1 Actually, this case does not deserve any indulgence by the Court and the relief prayed for does not deserve to be entertained. 7.2 It is pertinent to note that the petitioner, about 15 years after the fatal accident, wants to claim that the deceased was not its employee. The petitioner wants to also claim that the illiterate parents who filed the claim application alongwith the brother and the sister of the deceased, did not mention name of the Manager who was the pillion rider at the time of accident and they could not prove that the deceased was employee employed in the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner, thus, demanded that the illiterate parents should know and they should be aware about the name of employer and about the persons who go with their son to different places for official work. 7.3 While raising such contention, the petitioner conveniently overlooks that the employer had an opportunity to lead evidence. It could have examined the very same Manager as its witness who could have mentioned the correct facts, more particularly as to whether he was pillion rider alongwith the deceased employee on the vehicle which met with an accident or not. The petitioner could have, during long span of 11 years (while the case remained pending before the Commissioner), filed reply and established that the deceased was not its employee. The petitioner could have also examined other employee to establish that the deceased was not its employee and/or the Manager could have been examined and that Manager could have said that the deceased was not employee of the establishment. However, the petitioner did not take any such steps, though long span of 11 years passed after the claim application came to be filed in 2002. 8. As mentioned above, for initial period, the petitioner neglected the proceedings, initially it did not accept/receive the notice, then it did not enter appearance before the Commissioner, however, subsequently, the employer approached the Commissioner, received/accepted the notice and thereafter, the employer conveniently neglected the proceedings. 8.1 The petitioner employer did not file reply, did not examine any witness and did not place any document on record. 8.2 Unfortunately, the Commissioner also allowed the proceedings to linger on for almost 11 years. 8.1 The petitioner employer did not file reply, did not examine any witness and did not place any document on record. 8.2 Unfortunately, the Commissioner also allowed the proceedings to linger on for almost 11 years. 8.3 Without filing reply before the Commissioner and without leading any evidence before the Commissioner and without placing any document before the Commissioner, now, the petitioner wants to claim that the allegation by the claimants that the deceased was commuting from the petitioner's place of business for official work alongwith the Manager. They claimed that both were commuting on a scooter (bearing registration No.GJ.1.CA.9754); the petitioner was owner of said scooter and the deceased as well as the Manager were commuting on the said vehicle for official work when the scooter met with an accident (with a luxury bus bearing registration No.GJ.2.T.3906) and in the said accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot. 8.4 It is pertinent to note that the petitioner did not place on record even the document/papers related to the claim application (MACP proceedings which might have been instituted and/or the order passed in such proceedings). The petitioner conveniently maintained complete silence (and also remained absent) during the proceedings. 8.5 After 11 long years, the award came to be passed. 8.6 Thereafter also, the petitioner did not take any steps for long time and subsequently, the petitioner filed restoration application. 9. At this stage, it is relevant and important to note that in the Misc. Application, the employer claimed that the establishment is closed. 9.1 On the other hand, during his submissions and at early stage before the Commissioner, the petitioner claimed that the employee who had received the notice of the proceedings did not bring it to its attention and therefore, the proceedings could not be attended. 9.2 This Court may, for a moment ignore, such contradiction, but what cannot be ignored is the claim by the petitioner before the Commissioner viz. that the establishment is closed. 10. In this view of the matter, below mentioned facts become relevant:- [a] the claim application came to be filed in 2002; [b] for 11 years, the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings and neglected the proceedings; [c] after 11 years, the Commissioner passed the award; [d] after considerable delay, the employer filed restoration application and sought restoration of the claim application. In the said application, the petitioner employer came out with contradictory explanation as regards service of process; [e] any explanation for not attending the proceedings for 11 long years, (more particularly even after having appeared before the Commissioner and received the notice) was not offered by the petitioner in Misc. Application or even during hearing of the Misc. Application; [f] neither satisfactory explanation was offered for continuous absence in the proceedings for 11 years nor sufficient cause was made out; [g] the petitioner failed to make out any cause to justify the request viz. restoration of the proceedings; and [h] therefore, the Commissioner was constrained and compelled to dismiss the Misc. Application as employer failed to offer satisfactory explanation and make out sufficient cause. 11. In this undisputed backdrop, now, after 16 years, the petitioner wants to raise such contentions and objection and the petitioner, to delay the proceedings and frustrate the claim of the original claimants, wants to start its contentions and objections from the very primary and first stage, i.e. disputing even employer and employee relationship. 11.1 For obvious reasons, the Court would not make any observation with regard to such claim of the petitioner except that it is being raised at highly belated stage i.e. almost 16 to 17 years after sad demise of the employee. 11.2 Despite such gross facts, the Court would be the last forum to deny one chance and one opportunity to a party to legal proceedings to defend its case on merits. The proceedings contested on merits and a decision rendered after examining the merits is more relevant and more tenable than an order passed without granting opportunity of defence to one party. 12. However, should it be unconditional, is the question. 12.1 Undisputedly, the answer cannot be in affirmative. It has to be in negative. 12.2 Then what condition, would be appropriate, is the next question. 12.3 The petitioner claims that the establishment is closed. 12.4 Under the circumstances, it is very much necessary to protect the interest and claim of original claimants and to ensure that if the claimants succeed in the case, they may not hold mere paper decree, more particularly when this Court has noticed that even after 16 to 17 years since the death of the concerned employee/person, in fatal accident, the petitioner has not deposited amount awarded towards compensation. The award came to be passed in June 2013. Almost 5 years have passed since the award came to be rendered. Even during past 5 years, the amount is not deposited by the petitioner. When the petitioner itself claims that the establishment is closed, there is no certainty that the award, if rendered in favour of claimants, will be honoured and complied and there is no security about the compensation and the possibility that ultimately the proceedings may result into a paper decree. This pit fall has to be avoided. 12.5 Therefore, on overall consideration of the facts and circumstances and only with a view to avoid a feeling that Court did not grant one more opportunity of defence, the Court considers it appropriate to grant conditional opportunity to the petitioner. 13. Therefore, following order is passed:- [A] Within two weeks, the petitioner shall pay Rs. 25,000/- towards non-refundable cost to the respondents. [B] On such payment, the respondents will acknowledge the payment and issue the receipt acknowledging such payment. [C] The petitioner shall also deposit the principal amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 4,39,900/- alongwith 6% interest (to be calculated upto the date of deposit) with the office of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. [D] The petitioner may file separate application/Misc. Application before the Court of Commissioner alongwith the receipt issued by the claimants acknowledging the payment and the receipt acknowledging the deposit of principal amount and interest with a request that the proceedings of claim application No. 100 of 2002 may be restored. [E] It is clarified that at this stage the petitioner is not obliged to pay/deposit the amount of 20% penalty. [F] Upon being satisfied that the petitioner has paid Rs. 25,000/- towards cost and has also deposited the compensation alongwith interest upto the date of deposit, the Commissioner will pass appropriate order restoring the proceedings. [G] The Commissioner shall thereafter decide the claim application expeditiously and preferably within 4 months. [H] The petitioner shall not unnecessarily and unreasonably delay the proceedings and shall not seek adjournment. If the petitioner does not file reply within time granted by the Commissioner and if the petitioner does not place evidence within time granted by the Commissioner, it will be open to the Commissioner to pass appropriate order taking into account the petitioner's conduct. With aforesaid observations, clarifications and direction, present petition stands disposed of. If the petitioner does not file reply within time granted by the Commissioner and if the petitioner does not place evidence within time granted by the Commissioner, it will be open to the Commissioner to pass appropriate order taking into account the petitioner's conduct. With aforesaid observations, clarifications and direction, present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. Orders accordingly.