1. Employment termination — Delay in filing appeal — Condonation of delay under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1355
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T.Nanavati : S.N.Phukan
Deepak Parshad
Versus
Automobile Products Of India
Case No. : 6625 , 6627 of 1999
Date of Decision : 11/18/99
Advocates Appeared: Rao H.S.Gururaja
`
Important Points
High Courts should not interfere with the discretionary order of an appellate authority condoning delay if the decision is based on evidence of the party's diligence and sufficient cause, such as illness or advocate's negligence.
Subject
Labour Law - Condonation of Delay
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 - Condonation of delay - Appeal against termination of service - Delay of 153 days condoned by appellate authority on grounds of illness and negligence of advocate - High Court reversed the order holding that the delay was not due to the stated reasons - Evidence showed the employee had filed an internal appeal and consulted a lawyer shortly after termination, signing affidavits for condonation as early as July - Such evidence indicates diligence and intent to pursue the remedy - Minor inconsistencies in dates of knowledge of termination should not lead to doubting the correctness of the reason for delay - If the appellate authority deems it fit to condone the delay based on facts, the High Court ought not to interfere with such a discretionary order. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
An employee's services were terminated, and an appeal was filed with a delay of 153 days. The appellate authority condoned the delay based on the employee's illness and the advocate's negligence. The High Court reversed this decision, concluding the delay was not due to those reasons. The employee contended that the High Court ignored evidence of his diligence, including an internal appeal and early consultation with a lawyer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the employee had been vigilant in pursuing his remedy, as evidenced by the internal appeal and the preparation of affidavits in July, despite the advocate's failure to file the appeal until November.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the discretionary order of the appellate authority condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when an appellate authority exercises its discretion to condone delay based on a reasonable assessment of the facts and the party's diligence, the High Court should not substitute its own view or interfere with that discretionary order.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Facts of the case:
An employee's services were terminated, and an appeal was filed with a delay of 153 days. The appellate authority condoned the delay based on the employee's illness and the advocate's negligence. The High Court reversed this decision, concluding the delay was not due to those reasons. The employee contended that the High Court ignored evidence of his diligence, including an internal appeal and early consultation with a lawyer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the employee had been vigilant in pursuing his remedy, as evidenced by the internal appeal and the preparation of affidavits in July, despite the advocate's failure to file the appeal until November.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the discretionary order of the appellate authority condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when an appellate authority exercises its discretion to condone delay based on a reasonable assessment of the facts and the party's diligence, the High Court should not substitute its own view or interfere with that discretionary order.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the appellate authority's decision to condone delay in filing an appeal against termination was justified or should be reversed by the High Court. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. High Court failed to consider evidence of the appellant's vigilance and wrongly relied on minor date inconsistencies to overturn a discretionary order of condonation. (Para 5 )
4. A discretionary order condoning delay should not be interfered with if the party demonstrated vigilance, regardless of minor inconsistencies in statements. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Writ petition remitted for decision on merits. (Para 6 )
6. When should a High Court interfere with a discretionary order condoning delay in filing an appeal?
The High Court should not interfere with a discretionary order of condonation if the appellate authority was satisfied with the reasons provided and the appellant demonstrated vigilance in pursuing the remedy. (Para 5 )
7. Does a minor inconsistency in the date of knowledge of a termination order justify the reversal of a delay condonation order?
No, a minor inconsistency regarding the exact date of knowledge of an order should not lead the court to doubt the correctness of the reasons given for delay if other evidence shows the party was pursuing the remedy. (Para 5 )
8. Can negligence of an advocate be a valid ground for condoning delay in filing a legal appeal?
Yes, the court recognized that negligence of an advocate, where the party was otherwise vigilant and provided affidavits to that effect, can be a valid ground for the appellate authority to condone delay. (Para 4 , 5 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(3) THE only question that arises in these appeals is whether the High Court was right in holding that the appellate authority ought not to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the order of termination of the appellant.
(4) THE appellant was an employee of Respondent 1 Company. His services were terminated in the last week of April 1986 but the order of termination was made effective from May 10, 1986. The appellant challenged the order before the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, by filing an appeal sometime in November, 1986. There was delay of 153 days in filing the appeal. The appellate authority on consideration of the statement made by the appellant on oath and the material produced by him was satisfied that the appellant was vigilant in pursuing his remedy but because of his illness and negligence of his advocate the appeal could not be filed within time. The appellate authority therefore condoned the delay by an order dated September 11, 1987 and thereafter disposed of the appeal on merits. Against the order condoning delay, the respondent Company filed Writ Petition No. 10795 of 1987 and against the final order passed in the appeal it filed Writ Petition No. 5361 of 1988. While both the writ petitions were pending before the learned Single Judge, an application for stay was moved and the learned Single Judge directed the respondent Company to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 within four weeks from the date of the order. Aggrieved by that order the respondent Company preferred Writ Appeal No. 993 of 1988. With the consent of the parties the writ appeal and the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court was of the view that the appellate authority ought not to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the delay was not on account of illness of the appellant nor because of any negligence of his advocate but probably because the appellant, initially, did not want to challenge the said order. It, therefore, reversed the order condoning delay, held the appeal as time-barred and declared the order of Deputy Commissioner of Labour null and void. It allowed Writ Petitions Nos. 5361 of 1988 and 10795 of 1987. The writ appeal was disposed of as infructuous.
(5) MR. H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court has not properly considered the material which was placed before the appellate authority and wrongly held that the delay was not on account of illness of the appellant and negligence of his advocate. In our opinion, the learned counsel is right in his submission. The order of termination was passed in the last week of April 1986 and was to be effective from May 10, 1986. In his application for condonation of delay, the appellant had clearly stated that he had filed an appeal under Rule 6 of the Rules framed by the Company to the Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the Company and that as he did not hear anything from the Chairman/Vice-Chairman for more than a month he approached a lawyer, took his advice and decided to file an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. He had in fact approached the advocate in the month of June and an affidavit for condonation of delay was also prepared in the month of July, 1986. It appears that the advocate who was engaged by the appellant did not file the appeal, kept the appellant in the dark and got two or three more affidavits sworn by the appellant to create an impression that the matter was being pursued by him. Ultimately he filed the appeal in November. The very fact that the appellant had sworn an affidavit for condonation of delay in July 1986 would clearly indicate that he wanted to pursue the matter and was not negligent in taking necessary steps. He had filed an appeal to the Chairman of the respondent Company in time but the
