JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Ex-Officio Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Nadiad, in Workmen Compensation (Misc.) Application No. 12 of 2017 in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 1 of 2007 dated 29.03.2019. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the W.C. Commissioner requires to be quashed and set aside as the petitioner had no knowledge about the proceedings of W.C. (Fatal) Case No. 1 of 2017 due to non-representation of his case by the representative appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court, therefore the delay has caused which is required to be condoned. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not filed the restoration application with any mala fide intention, hence the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi, appearing for the legal heirs of respondent No. 1 has submitted that this petition need not be entertained, since the petitioner right from the beginning after the decision of the Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act in Misc. Application No. 07 of 2012 in W.C. Application No. 01 of 2007 dated 13.06.2012, has not complied with the same and has also not paid any amount, even after the issuance of recovery certificate. He has further submitted that each and every stage, there has been delay by the present petitioner, hence the writ petition may not be entertained. 4. The following facts are established from the record: a) The respondent filed a Workmen (Fatal) Application No. 1 of 2007, claiming compensation under the Act, from the present petitioner which was decided by the award dated 13.06.2012. b) It appears that the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings, except by filing the written statement, despite the issuance of notice. The Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act, was constrained to decide the same as ex parte vide award dated 13.06.2012. c) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a restoration Application No. 7 of 2012 for setting aside the ex parte award which was rejected by the order dated 15.01.2013. The Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act, was constrained to decide the same as ex parte vide award dated 13.06.2012. c) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a restoration Application No. 7 of 2012 for setting aside the ex parte award which was rejected by the order dated 15.01.2013. d) After the aforesaid rejection of the application of the petitioner, as the award became final, the respondent filed an application under the provisions of Section 31 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 for issuance of the recovery certificate. e) Accordingly, the aforesaid application was allowed and order was passed on 03.08.2015 by the Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Nadiad for issuance of certificate of an amount of Rs. 5,08,836/-. f) After realizing that the Commissioner has passed an order of issuance of recovery certificate, the present petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 12 of 2017 i.e. after a period of two years seeking condonation of delay for challenging the original award dated 15.01.2013 which was passed in W.C. Misc. Application No. 07 of 2012 in W.C. (Fatal) Application No. 01 of 2007. g) After considering all the facts by the impugned order dated 29.03.2019, the Commissioner has rejected the application seeking condonation of delay. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is filed. 6. The afore-noted facts would indicate the lethargic and recalcitrant attitude of the present petitioner in treating the statutory proceedings initiated by the respondent. The original application filed by the respondent being W.C. (Fatal) Application No. 01 of 2007 seeking compensation was allowed by the order dated 13.06.2012. Though, the petitioner filed the written statement contesting the aforesaid application filed by the respondent, it appears that they did not appear in the proceedings, hence the Commissioner was constrained to pass the order dated 13.06.2012 in favour of the respondent. 7. After the order was passed, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 7 of 2012 in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Application No. 01 of 2007, seeking recalling of the ex parte award. After hearing the concerned parties vide order dated 15.01.2013, the Commissioner rejected the aforesaid application of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the said order dated 15.01.2013 seeking setting aside of the ex parte award dated 15.01.2013 passed in original application (being W.C. Misc. After hearing the concerned parties vide order dated 15.01.2013, the Commissioner rejected the aforesaid application of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the said order dated 15.01.2013 seeking setting aside of the ex parte award dated 15.01.2013 passed in original application (being W.C. Misc. Application No. 07 of 2012 in W.C. (Fatal) Application No. 01 of 2007) was not challenged by the present petitioner before any forum and the same has became final. 8. The consequences of rejection of the aforesaid application vide order dated 15.01.2013 is that the original award has become final. The petitioner went into slumber and did not challenge the same. Since no further proceedings were filed by the present petitioner challenging the order dated 15.01.2013, the respondent filed Recovery Application No. 5 of 2013 under the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, seeking issuance of recovery certificate. By the order dated 03.08.2015, the Commissioner ordered to issue recovery certificate of the amount of Rs. 5,08,836/-. After passage of more than two years, the present petitioner filed an application for restoration being Misc. Application No. 12 of 2017 seeking condonation of delay for challenging the original order dated 13.06.2012 passed in W.C. (Fatal) Application No. 01 of 2007. Thus, after more than 5 years and that too after the rejection of the earlier application seeking recalling of the ex parte award, W.C. (Misc.) Application No. 12 of 2017 has been filed. After considering all the aspects, by the impugned order dated 29.03.2019, the Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act, has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner seeking condonation of delay. 9. The aforementioned proceedings indicate that the petitioner having accepted the order dated 15.01.2013 passed in his application being W.C. Misc. Application No. 07 of 2012 in W.C. (Fatal) Application No. 01 of 2007, rejecting his application seeking recalling of the so called ex parte award, did not do anything and the respondent workman, after having obtained a recovery certificate in his favour by the order dated 03.08.2015, the petitioner after a delay of two years filed the application being W.C. (Misc.) Application No. 12 of 2017, seeking condonation of delay of challenging the original award which was passed on 13.06.2012. Thus, the application being W.C. (Misc.) Application No. 12 of 2017 itself was not maintainable, since his earlier application which was filed being W.C. Misc. Thus, the application being W.C. (Misc.) Application No. 12 of 2017 itself was not maintainable, since his earlier application which was filed being W.C. Misc. Application No. 07 of 2012 in W.C. (Fatal) Application No. 01 of 2007, challenging or seeking recall of the ex parte award was already rejected by the order dated 15.08.2013, against which the petitioner did not file any proceedings. Thus, the writ petition is hopelessly meritless. The respondent-workman is waiting for his dues since 2015. The petitioner on one pretext or other has been filing futile applications in order to see that the respondent does not enjoy the fruits of the order passed in his favour despite issuance of the recovery certificate. 10. In the result, the writ petition is hereby rejected. The amount, which is deposited before the Ex-Officio Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act and Labour Court, Nadiad shall be paid to the legal heirs of the workman within a period of two weeks after proper verification. NOTICE is discharged.