The law of limitation applies equally to all litigants; government bodies and public authorities must demonstrate 'sufficient cause' through cogent, day-to-day explanations to justify condoning delays, as the court should not act as a surrogate for state apathy, negligence, or lack of diligence.

NAFR

Order on Board

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, an application filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. By the said application, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 122 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Application No. 68/2025, whereby the modification sought for was rejected, read with order dated 25.08.2025 passed in Application No. 49/2025 by the learned Labour Court, Dhamtari. It is submitted that while preferring the present appeal challenging the aforesaid orders, a delay of 122 days has occurred due to time consumed in collecting necessary and relevant documents and also due to lack of proper knowledge regarding the prescribed limitation period. It is further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, but bona fide and on account of sufficient cause.

3. It is further contended that the appellant has a good case on merits and, if the delay is not condoned, the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, it is prayed that, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the application for condonation of delay along with the material available on record.

5. Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the appellant has sought condonation of delay of 122 days on the grounds of delay in collecting documents and lack of knowledge of the limitation period. This Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned by the appellant are vague and general in nature and do not constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of law. No cogent or satisfactory explanation, much less a day-to-day explanation, has been furnished to justify the inordinate delay. It is well settled that the law of limitation is to be applied with all its rigour and cannot be relaxed in a routine manner.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, has dealt with the limitation issue and held as under:-

“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonaf