COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P. No.2044 of 2014 is filed assailing the order dated 02.06.2014 in E.P. (SR) No.8735 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The said E.P. arises out of the order dated 25.08.2011 in E.I.C. No.27 of 2005 passed by the Employees Insurance Court and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I at Hyderabad.

2. Whereas, C.M.A.No.921 of 2017 is filed along with delay condonation application in I.A.No.2 of 2017 (CMA MP No.1536 of 2017) to condone the delay of 2167 days in filing the C.M.A., assailing the order dated 25.08.2011 in the said E.I.C.No.27 of 2005. Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of C.R.P. along with I.A.No.2 of 2017 in/and C.M.A. No.921 of 2017 through this common order, since both the C.R.P. and C.M.A. are arising out of order dated 25.08.2011 in E.I.C.No.27 of 2005.

3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court.

4. Having regard to the factual matrix of the case, considering the chequered history of the litigation, initially let me decide the limitation application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act i.e., I.A. No.2 of 2017 to condone the delay of 2167 days in filing the C.M.A. assailing the order dated 25.08.2011 in E.I.C.No.27 of 2005.

5. E.I.C No.27 of 2005 was filed by M/s.

Secunderabad Club, Secunderabad, under Section 75 (1)(g) of Employees State Insurance Act (for short (cid:145)the Act(cid:146)) to set aside the proceedings dated 15.09.2003 issued by the respondent-the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), Regional Office, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad. After due enquiry, the learned judge, Industrial Tribunal-I at Hyderabad has allowed E.I.C. No.27 of 2005. The operative portion in para-16 of the impugned judgment is extracted for better appreciation of the facts.

(cid:147)In these circumstances by following the latest judgment of Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court, respondent- Corporation is directed not to raise any further demand against the petitioner club. So far dispute about the coverage of ESI Act to the petitioner club is concerned it become final as per the orders of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court vide Ex.P.13. Further whether petitioner club is a establishment or shop is to be decided by the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court as the same is pending for consideration. Hence these issues are answered accordingly.(cid:148)

6. This order was passed on 25.08.2011. The case of the petitioner/appellant/ESIC is that initially they have filed CMA (SR) No.11403 of 2012 assailing the said orders dated 25.08.2011 in E.I.C. No.27 of 2015 on 22.03.2012 itself with a petition to condone the delay in filing the C.M.A. and the system was showing as CMA (SR) is pending. They were under the bona fide impression that the matter is still pending. However, their counsel informed that the case bundle is not traceable either in the Court or in his office, as such fresh C.M.A. is filed. Accordingly, there is delay of 2167 days.

7. Whereas, a detailed counter is filed by the Secunderabad Club, through their Secretary alleging that it is for the petitioner/ ESIC to file appeal within limitation, if any CMA (SR)) No.11403 of 2012 is filed and showing in the system as it is pending, it is for them to enquire in the Court or to get the case bundle reconstructed, filing of fresh C.M.A. with such inordinate delay of 2167 days is unknown to law. In fact, the Secunderabad Club has issued a legal notice in the year 2016 and in the reply notice also, they did not mention as to filing of any such CMA (SR) No.11403 of 2012 and for the first time through this application such a plea was taken. The Secunderabad Club has taken steps for enforcement of the order of ESIC Court. The petitioner/ ESIC was aware of the proceedings subsequent to the award including filing of EP (SR) No.8735 of 2013 and at no point of time they have resisted that they have preferred an appeal. The Secundeabad Club has filed the Execution P