Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 211
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Gouranga Das & Ors. - Applicant
Vs.
Head Geo-Physics, ONGC Limited & Ors. - Respondents
CM APPl.68 of 2015 in MFA(W/C) 3 of 2015, CM Appl.70 of 2015 in MFA(W/C) 4 of 2015, CM Appl.72 of 2015 in MFA(W/C) 5 of 2015, CM Appl.74 of 2015 in MFA(W/C) 6 of 2015, CM Appl.76 of 2015 in MFA(W/C) 7 of 2015, CM Appl.78 of 2015 in MFA(W/C) 8 of 2015, CM Appl.80 of 2015 in MFA(W/C) 9 of 2015, And CM Appl.82 of 2015 in MFA(W/C) 10 of 2015
Decided On : 27.4.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate, Mr. S. Bhattacharji, Advocate, Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.
For Respondents 1 to 5:Mr. S.K. Deb, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P.B. Dhar, Advocate.
Respondent No. 6:Mr. D.R. Choudhury, Advocate, Mr. D. Deb, Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the conditions for the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the entitlement to claim condonation of delay under Section 5, especially for poor claimants seeking compensation.
Headnote:
Workmen Compensation - Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - [Section 14] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and its conditions. It highlighted the conditions that must be satisfied for Section 14 to be applied and emphasized the protection it provides to a litigant against the bar of limitation when a proceeding is dismissed due to a technical defect. The court also considered the entitlement to claim condonation of delay under Section 5, especially for poor claimants seeking compensation.
Fact of the Case:
Nine petitions were filed before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. The claim petitions were allowed, but the Commissioner deducted a certain amount paid by the opposite parties. The dependants filed appeals claiming that the deductions were not justified. The appeals were initially filed jointly, but later withdrawn and refiled with applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed all the applications, condoned the delay, and disposed of the applications for condonation of delay.
Issues: Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and entitlement to claim condonation of delay under Section 5.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the conditions for the application of Section 14 and emphasized the protection it provides to litigants against the bar of limitation. It also considered the entitlement to claim condonation of delay under Section 5, especially for poor claimants seeking compensation.
Final Decision: All the applications were allowed, and the delay was condoned. The applications for condonation of delay were disposed of.
All these applications are being disposed of by a common order since the facts involved are identical.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that as many as nine petitions were filed before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. The claim petitions were allowed but the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation while making the award has deducted certain amount which had been paid by the opposite parties. The dependants filed the appeals claiming that the Commissioner was not entitled to make such deductions from the awarded amount.
3. All the dependants filed one joint appeal being MFA(W/C) 23 of 2007 and this appeal was admitted on 30.11.2007 on the following substantial question of law :
“Whether the amount of compensation awarded can be reduced by the amount received by the legal heirs of the deceased under the Group Insurance Scheme relating to the workman?”
Notices were served on respondent No.6 in the year 2014. Thereafter the matter came up before this Court on 11.12.2014 when learned counsel for the appellants requested for an adjournment. Mr. S. Deb learned senior counsel rightly submits that on that date he had raised an objection that a joint appeal was not maintainable. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 13.01.2015 when again Mr. P. Roy Barman learned counsel for the appellant requested for an adjournment. The matter was then listed on 29.01.2015 on which date an application was filed and the appeal was prosecuted only on behalf of Sunil Debnath and all the other appellants withdrew the appeal. Thereafter the fresh appeals were filed on 12.02.2015. Along with these appeals applications for condonation of delay have been filed and these applications were filed both under Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. Sri P. Roy Barman submits that the appellants were under legal advice, diligently prosecuting a common appeal and it was only after the said objection was raised that the matter was examined and finally the application for withdrawal was filed. On the other hand, Mr. S. Deb learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, submits that Section 14 has no applicability to this case because this Court did not lack jurisdiction to decide the appeals and it is not a case of lack of jurisdiction. He also submits that with regard to Section 5 no explanation has been given as to how the delay occurred. On behalf of the respondent No.6 Mr. D.R. Choudhury submits that no steps were taken for serving the respondent for 6 long years and therefore, the delay cannot be condoned. As far as the objection raised by Mr. D.R. Choudhury is concerned that is without any merit and the same is rejected at the outset.
5. The question which arises is, whether Section 14 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case or not. Section 14 deals with exclusion of time spent by a litigant bona fide in a Court without jurisdiction.
Section 14(2) with which we are concerned reads as follows:
“(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.”
6. It is the case of Mr. Deb that since this Court did not lack inherent jurisdiction to decide the appeals of all the appellants Section 14 is not at all applicable. In this behalf he has placed reliance on the following observations of the Apex Court delivered in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises and another Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others, (2008) 7 SCC 169 which reads as follows :
“21. Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. On analysis of the said Section, it becom
