Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Augustine George Masih, J.
Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh And Others - Appellant
Vs.
Balbir Kaur And Others - Respondent
C.M. Nos. 26324-25-CII of 2015 and F.A.O. No. 8332 of 2015
Decided On : 11-04-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Vir Sharda, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing an appeal must be reasonably explained and that inaction and lethargy on the part of the applicants may lead to dismissal of the application and the appeal.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation Act - Delay Condonation - Section 30 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought condonation of a 1732-day delay in filing an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Kurukshetra, following the death of a driver in a work-related accident. The court found the delay unexplained and dismissed the application and the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not adequately explained and was due to inaction and lethargy on the part of the applicants. It also determined that the accident arose out of and in the course of the deceased's employment.
Issues: The main issue was the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Kurukshetra.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the appeal was not reasonably explained and was a result of inaction and lethargy on the part of the applicants. It also determined that the accident arose out of and in the course of the deceased's employment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
Augustine George Masih, J.
CM Nos. 26324-25-CII of 2015 and FAO No. 8332 of 2015
1. Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 4 years and 272 days (1732 days).
It has been stated in the application that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Kurukshetra, on 23.11.2010. Certified copy of the order was applied for on 14.12.2010 and the same was prepared on 22.12.2010. Advice of the Legal Remembrancer, U.T. Chandigarh was obtained, who opined that the order needs to be challenged in the higher Court of law. Shri Amar Vivek, Advocate was engaged as a Government counsel on 20.06.2011 to file the appeal and accordingly the papers were handed over to him. The officials of the department visited on various occasions the office-cum-residence of the counsel but to no avail. On 31.10.2013, Shri Amar Vivek, Advocate was removed from the panel by the Chandigarh Administration. Letters dated 02.09.2014 and 16.02.2015 were sent to the said counsel for handing over the case file but to no avail. Thereafter it came to the knowledge of the applicants-appellants that the Director, Prosecution, Chandigarh Administration, had issued revised Instructions dated 19.08.2014, whereby the present counsel was engaged and a request was made to him to prepare the appeal so that the impugned order of the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Kurukshetra, may be challenged. Certain clarifications were sought by the counsel and thereafter he on 26.05.2015 had informed that as per Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, pre deposit of the amount payable under the order appealed against, was required. A Demand Draft No. 103989 dated 29.07.2015 amounting to Rs. 4,07,917/- was deposited with the Commissioner, Kurukshetra. A further Demand Draft dated 08.09.2015 of Rs. 1,73,800/- was also deposited to make the entire payment as per the impugned order dated 23.11.2010. It is thereafter that the present appeal was filed on 29.10.2015 resulting in delay of 1732 days in filing the appeal.
2. The counsel for the applicants-appellants has asserted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional and the same has been explained in detail and, therefore, the application be allowed and the delay be condoned.
3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and have also gone through the application which is supported by the affidavit but do not find myself in a position to accept that the inordinate delay in filing the appeal has been duly explained or that there has not been any negligence or inaction on the part of the applicants-appellants.
4. Firstly, as is apparent that the certified copy of the order was received on 22.12.2010, thereafter, nothing has been mentioned as to when the matter was put up before the Legal Remembrancer, Chandigarh and as to when the advice was received. The next date, as mentioned in the application, is 20.06.2011 when a counsel was engaged to file the appeal. It would not be out of way to mention here that the period for filing the appeal is 60 days which had expired on 30.01.2011. The date on which the relevant documents/record including the copy of the judgment which was handed over to the counsel has not been mentioned. Even the dates on which the efforts were made to approach the counsel have not been detailed in the application. The next date which is mentioned in the application is 31.10.2013, where the name of the counsel was removed from the panel. No explanation is forth coming for the period of more than two years. Not only this, the first letter which is addressed to the counsel Shri Amar Vivek, is dated 02.09.2014 which is almost one year after the date of removal of the name of the counsel from the panel which is followed by a letter dated 16.02.2015 for return of the case file. The next step taken by the Director, Prosecution, Chandigarh Administration, is on 19.08
