SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAVI RANJAN
Workman Maheshi Saw, Son of Late Sohar Saw – Appellant
Versus
Employers in relation to Management of Mudidih Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P. O. & P. S. Sijua, District-Dhanbad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 994 of 2022
1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 239 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.
2. No counter affidavit to the Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of respondents.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 994 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 239 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
6. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed in W.P. (L) No. 6007 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder while dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the Award dated 17.01.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, by which the reference has been answered against the writ petitioner-workman declining to make necessary correction in his date of birth.
7. The brief
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque
Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division
Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh
Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors.
Heinz India (P) Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. vs. Krishna Kant Pandey
The date of birth recorded in Form B is conclusive evidence to determine the age of the workman, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited in reviewing fi....
The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can only be challenged if it suffers from perversity or there is a jurisdictional error.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's jurisdiction to interfere with the award is limited to cases of perversity of finding or when the award is based on erroneous evid....
The court emphasized that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and findings of fact reached by the tribunal cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceeding....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reasonable explanation for delay in raising a dispute and the entitlement of the workman to the correction of his date of birth i....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.