ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

CM APPL. 20146/2019 (Condonation of delay in filing the restoration application)

1. The instant application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/applicant seeking condonation of delay of 1880 days in filing the accompanying restoration application.

2. The captioned writ petition was filed against the impugned order dated 4th April 2001, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. V, Room No. 54, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, whereby, the respondent has held that 17 workmen failed to prove that they had completed 240 days or more in the service of the management in one calendar year immediately Signature Not Verified CM APPL. 20146/2019 & CM APPL. 20145/2019 in W.P.(C) 6862/2002 Page 1 of 7 Digitally Signed By:SARIKA preceding the date of their termination and hence, they are not entitled for any relief.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/petitioner submitted that the instant application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1880 days in filing the accompanying restoration application.

4. It is submitted that the captioned writ petition bearing W.P(C) no.

6862/2002 was dismissed in default vide order dated 27th November 2013.

5. It is submitted that the applicant came to know regarding the said dismissal order only when he received the copy of the order from the registry of this Court by way of applying for a certified copy.

6. It is submitted that in the instant circumstance, the petition was dismissed in default and the same is the fault of the petitioner’s earlier counsel who had failed to appear before this Court diligently and also failed to inform the applicant/petitioner regarding his non-appearance or any other update.

7. It is submitted that the applicant/petitioner could not connect with the previous counsel since his contact details and even the office address of the said counsel got changed, and the petitioner was unaware about the same.

8. It is submitted that as soon as the petitioner came to the knowledge that the petition has been dismissed for default, he immediately approached this Court seeking the relief of restoration.

9. Hence, in view of the foregoing submissions, the petitioner seeks that the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application seeking restoration of the petition to its original stage and number be allowed.

Signature Not Verified CM APPL. 20146/2019 & CM APPL. 20145/2019 in W.P.(C) 6862/2002 Page 2 of 7 Digitally Signed By:SARIKA

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

11. To condone the delay of 1880 days in filing the application seeking restoration of the petition, it is imperative to discuss the nature of the said delay, and whether such delay can be condoned based on the grounds raised by the petitioner.

12. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter “Act”) provides for extension of prescribed period for filing an application under any provision except Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby, giving powers to the Court to admit such application by condoning the delay after the prescribed period of limitation, and the said power is to be exercised if “sufficient cause” has been shown thereto.

13. The aforesaid provision makes it clear that the phrase “sufficient cause” is a necessary condition for the extension of the prescribed period under the Act. Therefore, the petitioner/applicant needs to satisfy this Court that there is “sufficient cause” for delay in not preferring the petition/application within the prescribed time.

14. The term “sufficient cause” as per the provision has been interpreted by different Courts and it is well settled that the question as to what constitutes sufficient delay cannot be rigid, rather the same is to be decided by the courts on facts and circumstances of each case.

15. In the instant application, the petitioner has urged that the