The Court clarified that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to proceedings under special local laws, enabling the condonation of brief delays in certain circumstances.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Bench dated 8-5-2009 passed in Saiyad Zalil Akhtar v. Zila Sahkari Krishi Avam Gramin Vikas Bank, [Saiyad Zalil Akhtar v. Zila Sahkari Krishi Avam Gramin Vikas Bank, WP (C) No. 4089 of 2009, order dated 8-5-2009 (MP)] in and by which the Division Bench upheld the order of the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal dated 18-3-2009 passed in First Appeal No. 120 of 2008 along with First Appeal No. 67 of 2009. The Tribunal by the said order held that the appellant's application filed under S.55(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act was belated by 2 days and since there being no provision for condoning any delay in filing of the appeal and S.5 of the Limitation Act was also not applicable, the application of the appellant against the order of punishment, was liable to be rejected. The Division Bench having now confirmed the said order of the Tribunal the appellant is before us.

3. To briefly narrate the sequence of events, the appellant is an employee of the respondent Bank which is a Cooperative Bank. For certain acts of misconduct, he was proceeded against and by an order dated 8-8-1995 he was imposed with the punishment of freezing of 5 increments which resulted in his then current salary of Rs.1600 which was brought down to the minimum level of Rs.1180. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant filed an application before the Deputy Registrar on 11-9-1995. As per S.55(2) of the Act, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 8-9-1995. Unfortunately, the Deputy Registrar who was competent to decide his application by his order dated 16-4-2002, upheld the order of punishment dated 8-8-1995. It must be stated that at that point of time, the question of limitation appeared to have been not raised by the respondent herein. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar who partially allowed his appeal by his order dated 29-4-2003.

4. As against the said order, the appellant as well as the respondent preferred appeals before the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 24-7-1996, in SAs Nos. 1 and 18 of 2002 remitted the matter back to the Joint Registrar for fresh disposal. The Joint Registrar by his order dated 21-4-2008, again partially allowed the case of the appellant which gave rise to filing of two appeals before the Appellate Tribunal in First Appeals Nos. 120 of 2008 and 67 of 2009. It must be stated that till the above appeals came to be disposed of, the question of limitation was not a point in issue before any of the forums earlier.

5. By the order dated 18-3-2009, the Tribunal for the first time dealt with the question of limitation after having noted that there was two days' delay in filing the appeal and there being no provision for condoning the delay by the original authority, rejected the original application itself on the ground of delay. The appellant challenged the said order in the writ petition. The Division Bench has now passed the impugned order dated 8-5-20091 affirming the view of the Tribunal by following the decision of this Court in Noharlal Verma v. District Coop. Central Bank Ltd. , 2008 (14) SCC 445 and held that the application of the appellant was barred by limitation and there was no power for the original authority to condone any delay and consequently, the application itself was held as not maintainable.

6. Assailing the said order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the decision relied upon by the Division Bench is no longer good law in the light of the recent decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Anshuman Shukla , 2014 (10) SCC 814 rend