The court emphasized that the law of limitation must be interpreted strictly, and insufficient cause for a 902-day delay in filing an appeal cannot justify condonation. The merits of the case should not be weighed during this process.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the Judgment dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) 10416/2020. Vide the said Judgment, a decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No.2, New Delhi [Ld. Tribunal setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the Appellant by the Respondent/Bank, has been set aside by the Ld. Single Judge.

2. The present Appeal has been filed with a delay of 902 days. This Court vide Order dated 25.02.2025 had directed the Appellant to file a Supplementary Affidavit providing sufficient details to make out a case for condonation of delay of 902 days in filing the present Appeal. Pursuant to the said Order dated 25.02.2025 passed by this Court, an Application being CM APPL. 51007/2025 was filed by the Appellant explaining the reasons for delay of 902 days in filing the present Appeal. The said Application is being reproduced in its entirety:

"1. That the Appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment and decree/order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Hon'ble single bench of this Hon'ble Court in the W.P. (C) No. 10416/2020 setting aside the award dated 09.10.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labor Court No.2, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi in ID No.11/2008 titled as Sh. Paramjit Singh Nanda Vs The Chief Manager Punjab & Sind Bank.

2. That the limitation period for filing the present appeal expired on 08.03.2022. However, due to reasons mentioned hereinbelow, there is a delay of 902 days, in filing the present letter patent appeal. The Appellant, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the said delay in the interest of justice.

3. That the Appellant is a senior citizen aged about 73 years and a retired employee, who is otherwise educated and law-abiding, but has been suffering from multiple age-related ailments like: - hypertension, arthritis, mobility issues, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. for the past several years. The Appellant has also been undergoing continuous medical treatment during this period, which severely limited his ability to coordinate and pursue legal remedies diligently.

4. That the Appellant had initially placed his trust in the counsel engaged erstwhile before engaging me and awaited proper legal advice and certified copy of the judgment. However, due to erroneous advice,communication gap, and subsequent inaction on part of the local counsel, the appeal was not filed within the limitation period

5. That thereafter, upon realizing the consequences of not filing the appeal, the Appellant immediately sought fresh legal opinion and upon receiving proper guidance, instructed the filing of the present appeal without any further delay.

6. That the delay caused in filling the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional, but due to the circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. There has been no willful negligence, malafide or casual approach in the matter, and the Appellant has always acted Bonafide.

7. That the Appellant has a strong prima facie case and the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities which require judicial scrutiny by this Hon'ble Court. If the delay is not condoned, the Appellant would suffer grave and irreparable loss, and the valuable rights of appeal would be lost.

8. That it is a settled law that a liberal approach is to be adopted in condoning delay, especially where the applicant is a senior citizen and has demonstrated sufficient cause. Dismissal of appeal on technical grounds would result in miscarriage of justice.

9. That the present application is made Bonafide and in the interest of justice.

PRAYER:

In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully praye