The absence of a formal application for condoning delay does not impede the statutory authority's discretion to admit belated applications if a sufficient cause is shown.

JUDGMENT : 

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against an order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated February 27, 2025, in writ petition No. WPA 30952 of 2024.

2. The matter relates to an application filed by the respondent No. 3 before the statutory Authority/Joint Labour Commissioner (P)/respondent No. 2 and Referee under the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963. Being aggrieved by an order dated November 25, 2024 of the respondent No. 2, the present appellant, being the writ petitioner, had filed the said writ petition before the Hon’ble Single Judge. There, appellant/writ petitioner had raised an issue that the application of the respondent No. 3 before the Referee was barred by limitation, the respondent No. 2/Referee could not have proceeded with such application of the respondent No. 3 without dealing with the question of delay in filing of the said application as well as condonation thereof.

3. Therefore, before the respondent No. 2/Referee the appellants filed their application dated August 6, 2024, wherein the issue of limitation was raised by the present appellants. The appellants are aggrieved that the respondent No. 2/Referee has failed to take into consideration the issue of limitation in filing the application by the respondent No. 3. Learned Advocate, Mr. Paul appearing for the appellants has strenuously argued that the statute has specifically provided for the subject matter of limitation in case of filing an application under the provisions of West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act, 1963, before the competent statutory Authority. He has argued that in case of an application having been filed at a belated stage, the applicant (in this case the respondent No. 3) should have filed an application disclosing the fact of delay as well as seeking condonation thereof. He says that the concerned respondent Authority could have only proceeded after considering the written prayer by the applicant for condonation of delay, in case of an application filed by him beyond the statutory period of limitation. Mr. Paul, learned Advocate has stated that in the present case, neither the applicant/respondent No. 3 has filed any application disclosing the delay or seeking condonation thereof, nor the statutory Authority/respondent No. 2/Referee has considered and decided thereupon but instead has proceeded to pass order as impugned in the said writ petition, as if there were no delay at all and no necessity to file any application for condonation of delay.

4. Secondly, Mr. Paul, learned Advocate for the appellant has emphasized that the Hon’ble Single Judge in its order dated February 27, 2025, has failed to apply mind to the above gross illegality committed by the respondent No. 2 in passing its order dated November 25, 2024. He says that the proper course of action should have been to remand back the matter before the respondent No. 2 for consideration of the issue of limitation. Allegedly instead, by condoning the limitation by itself and imposing further directions, the Hon’ble Single Judge has acted erroneously. He submits that without the respondent No. 3 even praying for condonation of delay, the said question could not have gone into by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the impugned order dated February 27, 2025.

5. Mr. Paul in this regard, has referred to Section 14 of the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 .

6. For the reasons as above, Mr. Paul, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant seeks that the appeal may be allowed and necessary directions may be issued.

7. Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee has represented the respondent No. 3 and