SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 631

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The Deputy Director (Recovery), The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Coimbatore - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Thirumurthy Mills, Rep.by its Joint Managing Director, V. Rajkumar - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 6865 of 2020 in C.M.A.SR. No. 13915 of 2019
Decided On : 03-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:G. Bharadwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M/s. C. Manohar Gupta for M/s. Gupta & Ravi, Advocates.

Delay condonation is an exception and can only be granted on genuine and acceptable reasons. Discretionary powers must be exercised judiciously, and unexplained delays cannot be condoned.

Headnote:

Delay Condonation - Employees Insurance - ESI Act, Section 82(3), Section 82(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 82(3) and Section 82(2) of the Employees Insurance Act, emphasizing that delay condonation is an exception and can only be granted on genuine and acceptable reasons. The court highlighted the importance of recording reasons for condoning delays and the need for valid and convincing explanations for enormous delays. It emphasized that unexplained delays cannot be condoned and that discretionary powers must be exercised judiciously.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a petition to condone a delay of 300 days in filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order and judgment passed in EIOP No.6 of 2011 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court, Coimbatore.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the reasons stated for condoning the delay were neither candid nor convincing, and consequently dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and rejected the appeal at the SR Stage.

Issues: The main issue was whether the enormous delay of 300 days in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 82(3) of the ESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that delay condonation is an exception and can only be granted on genuine reasons. It emphasized the need for valid and acceptable explanations for delays, the importance of recording reasons for condoning delays, and the judicious exercise of discretionary powers.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.6865 of 2020 was dismissed, and consequently, C.M.A.SR.No.13915 of 2019 was rejected at the SR Stage itself. No costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: C.M.P.No.6865 of 2020 is filed under Section 82(3) of ESI Act, to condone the delay of 300 days in filing the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, against the order and judgment passed in EIOP No.6 of 2011 dated 31.01.2018 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court(Principal Labour Court), Coimbatore.

C.M.A.SR.No.13915 of 2019 is filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees Insurance Act, against the order and judgment passed in EIOP No.6 of 2011 dated 31.01.2018 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court(Principal Labour Court), Coimbatore.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition on hand is filed under Section 82(3) of ESI Act, to condone the delay of 300 days in filing the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, against the order and judgment passed in EIOP No.6 of 2011 dated 31.01.2018 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court(Principal Labour Court), Coimbatore.

2. The Deputy Director (Recovery), The Employees State Insurance Corporation is the petitioner and the petition is filed to condone the delay of 300 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. The sole reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that the appellant had forwarded the order passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.6 of 2011 to the Regional Office, ESI Corporation and there was an administrative delay in granting approval. Mere administrative delay cannot be a ground to condone the enormous delay of 300 days. Any such delay must be substantiated with an acceptable reason. Thus, the authorities are expected to be vigilant in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. The Authorities cannot simply say that there was a delay of 300 days in filing the appeal on the ground of administrative delay. In other words, unsubstantiated administrative delay cannot be an acceptable ground for the purpose of condoning the huge delay.

4. This Court has to consider whether such a long administrative delay can be condoned in a mechanical manner or not. Undoubtedly, there is a possibility of some administrative delay in certain unavoidable circumstances. However, such administrative delay, if exceeds and the delay is enormous, then it cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner. The Petitioner being a public authority, they are bound to be vigilant and prompt in performing their duties and responsibilities. Small amount of delay can be condoned by taking a lenient view. However, long delay cannot be condoned in the absence of any valid and acceptable reasons.

5. In recent years, these public authorities are found to be frequently negligent and committing dereliction of duty in respect of dealing with such appeals and other cases. There is a general trend that the public authorities are having lack of sincerity and committing dereliction on duty. These negligence and dereliction of duty are serious misconducts and therefore, the higher authorities are bound to ensure that the officials are performing their duties and responsibilities with utmost care and with devotion to duty. Any such lapse or dereliction of duty is to be enquired into properly and all appropriate actions are to be initiated to ensure initiations of appropriate disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the authorities cannot approach the Court in a routine or mechanical manner with a huge delay in filing an appeal. Every such delay is to be explained in a proper manner and the Courts are also to ensure that unexplained delay is not condoned in a routine manner.

6. Perusal of the affidavit shows that there is absolutely no acceptable reason for the purpose of condoning the enormous delay of 300 days in filing the appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit must be convincing, enabling this Court to consider the condonation of delay. Huge delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Law of Limitation is substantive. Condonation of delay is an exception. Only on genuine reasons, delay can be condoned by exercising the power of discretion.

7. Mechanical way of condoning delay is undoubtedl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top