Sufficient cause has to be shown for condonation of delay.

Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem dated 9.6.1995, holding that there is no provision to condone the delay in filing an appeal in Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and to issue direction to the first respondent to entertain the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:

The petitioner was employed under the second respondent since 17.8.1984. While so, the second respondent placed her under suspension on 21.3.1993, pending enquiry into certain charges levelled against her. Since the amount of subsistence allowance paid to her was not in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules, 1981 (in short “the Rules”), she filed a petition before the competent authority under the said Act against the second respondent to pay the balance amount. The competent authority, taking an erroneous view of the matter, allowed her claim partly. Therefore, she preferred an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent by the impugned order dated 9.6.1995, returned her application for condonation of delay along with the appeal saying that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules for condonation of delay, hence the present writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent.

4. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act has power to condone the delay in filing the appeale

5. There is no dispute that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Authorised Officer under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act in the application filed by the petitioner in P.S.A. No.43 of 1994 has granted subsistence allowance only Rs.1,862 as against the claim of Rs.8,769. The said order was passed by the said authority on 18.11.1994. As per Rule 5-A(1) of the Rules, any person aggrieved by the order passed by an authority authorised under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.7 of the Act, may prefer an appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said order to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour within the local limits assigned to him under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The other Sub-rules of Rule 5-A speak about procedure for filing an appeal and disposal of the same. Though Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.7 of the Act prescribes 60 days time for filing an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, there is no provision for condonation of delay in respect of petition filed after expiry of 60 days. In the absence of specific provision to condone the delay, the first respondent rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay.

6. Mr. S. Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in so far as there is no provision in Rule 5-A of the said Rules excluding the invocation of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, the first respondent has got powers under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to entertain the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay. For this he very much relied on Sec.29(2) of the Limitation Act, which reads as under.

“29 (2). Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Sec.3 shall apply as if such periods were the period prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Secs.4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.”

7. A reading of the said provision shows that Sec.29(2) of the Limitation Act apply in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded b