Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Allu Nookaratnam – Respondent
I.A. No. 1 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115 of 2022
Decided On : 29-09-2022
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - DELAY IN FILING APPEAL - CONDONATION - INORDINATE DELAY - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - PUBLIC POLICY - INTEREST REIPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM - VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS JURA SUBVENINET.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, an employee of the respondent, met with an accident while on duty and later died. The wife of the deceased filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which was granted by the lower tribunal. The appellant filed an appeal against the order with a delay of 1013 days, and filed an application to condone the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay did not indicate sufficient reason, much less proper reason. The court observed that the appellant was not vigilant in prosecuting the appeal and that the affidavit did not show any sufficient cause. The court further held that condoning the delay in such cases would violate statutory principles and show utter disregard to the legislature.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay of 1013 days in filing the appeal should be condoned? 2. Whether the reasons assigned by the appellant for the delay were sufficient?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay of 1013 days in filing the appeal was inordinate and that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay. 2. The court observed that the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay did not indicate sufficient reason, much less proper reason. The court further held that the appellant was not vigilant in prosecuting the appeal and that the affidavit did not show any sufficient cause.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal.
JUDGMENT
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order dtd. 30/4/2019 in WC Case No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam.
2. I.A.No.1 of 2022 is filed to condone the delay of 1013 days in filing the CMA.
3. Wife of deceased, filed WC Case No.1 of 2017 against the respondent/opposite party claiming compensation of Rs.6,65,160.00. According to the applicant, deceased who is employee of respondent met with an accident while on duty on 2/9/2010 and later died on 8/4/2011. Respondent contested the case. After considering the rival contentions, lower tribunal by order dtd. 30/4/2019 granted compensation of Rs.6,52,280.00.
4. Against the said order, the above civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Sec. 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act with a delay of 1013 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone delay, it was pleaded at Paragraphs-2 to 4 as follows:
"2. It is submitted that against the order dtd. 30/4/2019 passed in W.C.No.1of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam as CMA was filed vide CMA SR No.6349 of 2020 on 20/2/2020. The Online High Court Case Status is showing that the case is returned. It is respectfully submitted that due to Covid pandemic we were unable to take the return file. Thereafter we were unable to trace the file. As such this CMA is filed. Due to this there is a delay in filing the CMA again this delay is not wanton or intentional.
3. I respectfully submit that during January and February 2020 lot of employees took VRS within the department, due to which delay occurred in filing the petition. The delay caused is neither willful nor intentional due to the above mentioned reasons.
4. I submit that I am filing the above C.M.A against the order dtd. 30/4/2019 passed in W.C.No.1of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam for the reasons stated above."
5. Since the appeal is filed with an inordinate delay, this Court ordered notices to respondent.
6. Respondent filed counter and opposed the application.
7. Heard Sri Bhaskar Poluri, learned counsel for appellant and Sri A.Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent.
8. Deponent to the affidavit is the Assistant General Manager (PR & Legal), Office of General Manager, BSNL, Visakhapatnam. Name of the deponent and other particulars were not mentioned in the affidavit. However, the affidavit was signed by the deponent and the same was attested by Dy.General Manager (CFA) O/o GMTD, B.S.N.L., Visakhapatnam.
9. Order XIX of Code of Civil Procedure deals with affidavit. Like that Chapter-IV of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 also deals with affidavits. Rule 35 denotes 'Form'; Rule 36 denotes 'Description of deponent' and Rule 37 denotes 'title of affidavits'. Regarding attestation etc. was also specified in the other Rules.
10. The affidavit filed along with the I.A.No.1 of 2022 is reproduced hereunder:
"I, now temporarily come down to AMARAVATHI, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows:"
11. An affidavit is a written statement voluntarily made by deponent under oath or affirmation which is administered by a person who is authorized to do so by law.
12. Sworn affidavit is a written statement made under oath. The person who is making the statement sworn that the document contains the truth and is aware that he will be prosecuted if it is found that the contents of the affidavit (or parts thereof) are untrue.
13. Affidavits should be drawn in the first person, and the matter of the affidavit should be divided into paragraphs which are numbered consecutively. Each of the paragraphs in an affidavit should ideally be confined to a portion of the subject. Affidavits should mention the full name, fathers name, religious persuasion, age, profession, occupation and residence
The law of limitation is founded on public policy and statutes of limitation are sometimes described as "statutes of peace". An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and unc....
The courts should adopt a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in matters of delay for appeals, especially concerning government litigants, to promote substantial justice.
claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limi....
Point of law: claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. T....
Delay condonation is an exception and should only be allowed on genuine reasons. Unexplained delay cannot be condoned, and discretionary powers should be exercised judiciously, with reasons recorded ....
Condonation of delay is an exception to the law of limitation and must be supported by genuine and acceptable reasons, to be exercised judiciously and recorded appropriately.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
