IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.No.26178 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.27831 of 2017 B.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Deputy General Manager/ OB/ Mine-I, Appellate Authority, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli – 607 803.

2. The Chief Manager/ SBS/ Mine-I, Disciplinary Authority, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli – 607 803. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent in Proc. No. Mine-I/HR/DAC/278-12/2017, dated 20.04.2017 and the appellate order made by the 1st respondent in Proc.No.Mine-

I/HR/DAC/278-12/2017 dated 25.08.2017 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.N.Nithianandam

ORDER

Though this Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings No. Mine-I/HR/DAC/278-12/2017, dated 20.04.2017 and the order passed by the first respondent/ appellate authority in Proceedings No.Mine- I/HR/DAC/278-12/2017 dated 25.08.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his argument only to the extent of the order passed by the first respondent/ appellate authority in its order dated 25.08.2017, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner was refused to be entertained on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation of 14 days prescribed under the relevant Standing Orders.

2. This Court heard the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.N.Nithianandam. The learned counsel for the respondents produced the copy of the Standing Orders, basing upon which the appeal of the petitioner was refused to be entertained. Paragraph 12 of Appendix to the Standing Orders deals with the remedy of appeal, which reads as under:-

“12. Appeal: An appeal shall be preferred by a workman within 14 days from the date on which the appellant was informed of the order appealed against and it shall contain all material statements and arguments relied upon by the appellant. It shall contain no disrespectful or improper language and shall be complete in itself. Every such appeal should be submitted through the Head of the Section, or Division Branch which the appellant belonged or belongs. Every person preferring an appeal shall do so separately and in his own name. There shall be no second appeal.”

3. Paragraph 14 of the very same Appendix reads as under:-

“14. An appeal may be withheld by an authority not lower than the authority from whose orders it is preferred:-

If it is not preferred within 14 days of the receipt of the order appealed against. or If it is a further appeal against an order already appealed against. or If it contains any disrespectful or improper language or is not submitted through the proper channel. Provided that in every case in which an appeal is withheld, the appellant shall be informed of the fact and the reasons for such withholding. No appeal shall lie against the withholding of an appeal.”

In terms of Paragraph No.12, as extracted above, an appeal is required to be preferred by a workmen within 14 days from the date on which the appellant was informed of the order appealed against. Thus, 14 days is the time granted to the aggrieved workmen to file an appeal against the order of punishment. However, Paragraph No.14 says that an appeal may be withheld by an authority, if it is not preferred within 14 days of the receipt of the order appealed against. From the language used in Paragraph No.14, it is evident that the authority not lower than the authority from whose order it is preferred has the discretion to withhold such appeal or to forward such appeal to the appellate authority if filed after 14 days. From this, it is evident that the period of limitation of 14 days prescribed under Paragraph No.12 is not a mandatory requirement and the same can be relaxed by the Appellate Authority provided the authority, who passed the order forwards the appea