The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'month' as per Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and its application in computing the time period for presenting an appeal under Rule 20-B of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is presented by the workman covered under Employees' state Insurance Act to challenge the order dated 7. 10. 1997 in E. S. I. Application No. 66 of 1995 passed by the E. I. Court. In passing the said order, the E. I. Court had rejected the application of the appellant herein on the ground that there was delay of a day in presenting the application.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein is represented by Mrs. H. Mangalamba Rao, whereas the contesting respondent No. 2, E. S. I. Corporation is represented by Mr. V. Narasimha.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant had taken me through the impugned order. According to her, the E. I. Court had erred in law, inasmuch as it had held erroneously that the application in question was not presented within 3 months from the date of communication of the order, for according to her, admittedly, the communication by the Medical Board was on 19. 9. 95 and as such, a period of 3 months came to an end on 19. 12. 1995. Therefore, she submitted that the application presented by the appellant on 19. 12. 1995 was well in time and as such, the E. I. Court would not have rejected the application of the appellant on the point of delay.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2 Mr. Holla on the other side, supported the impugned order passed by the E. I. Court. .

( 5 ) I feel it appropriate to quote here rule 20-B of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950, in short henceforth, 'the Rules'. The same reads as hereunder: "20-B. Appeals to Employees' Insurance court. (1) The insured person or the Corporation may appeal to the employees' Insurance Court by presenting an application within three months of the date of communication of the said decision of the Medical Board or of the medical Appeal Tribunal to the insured person or the Corporation, as the case may be: provided that the Employees' Insurance court may entertain an application after the period of three months, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient reason for not presenting the application within the said period. (2) The rules made by the State Government in respect of the forms and manner to be followed in presenting applications to the Employees' Insurance Court, shall be applicable to the applications presented under this rule. "

( 6 ) I have also applied my mind to the case in hand. As I see, as per rule 20-B of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) rules, 1950, insured person, as the appellant herein, had to file an appeal before the employees' Insurance Court by presenting an application within 3 months from the date of communication of the decision by the Medical Board or the Medical Appeal tribunal. Admittedly, in the instant case in hand the communication of the Medical board was on 19. 9. 1995 and if 3 months of the time were to be reckoned from that date of communication, i. e. , 19. 9. 1995, the last day of the said period of 3 months occurs only on 19. 12. 1995. That I say on the analogy that, if the first day had commenced on 19. 9. 1995, that first day had ended only on the day next, i. e. , 20. 9. 95.

( 7 ) AS argued by the learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Mangalamba Rao, the application by way of appeal as contemplated under the above rule came to be presented on that last date, i. e. , 19. 12. 1995. It is, therefore, obvious that the application filed by the appellant before the E. I. Court on that day is well within 3 months from the date of communication of the order by the Board. The E. I. Court in the matter of computing the period of 3 months from the date of communication, i. e. , 19. 9. 1995 observed that, that period of 3 months had come to a close on 18. 12. 1995. That in my considered view appears to be erroneous on the part of the E. I. Court to do.

( 8 ) SINCE we are dealing with the Central enactment in the Employees' State Insurance act, it is relevant to refer to section 3 (35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, wherein 'month'