Gujarat High Court
Dhirajlal Manjibhai Poshiya vs The District Panchayat on 19 July, 2013
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
DHIRAJLAL MANJIBHAI POSHIYA....Applicant(s)V/STHE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT JUNAGADH C/CA/593/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 593 of 2013 In SECOND APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 317 of 2012 ================================================================ DHIRAJLAL MANJIBHAI POSHIYA....Applicant(s) Versus THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT JUNAGADH & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 19/07/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. The present applicant seeks condonation of delay of 3115 days, which has taken place in preferring the Second Appeal (Stamp) No.317 of 2012. In the Second Appeal, order of learned Joint District Judge 9th Fast Track Court, Porbandar in regular Civil Appeal No.10 of 2000 is sought to be challenged, which was passed on 30th December 2003.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms.Krishna G. Rawal, for the applicant and learned advocate Mr.H.S. Munshaw, for the respondents.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant, with reference to the averments made in the application, submitted that though the delay is long, in fact the same has occurred as the applicant earlier prosecuted the matter before the wrong forum. It is the case of the applicant that he was serving as work charged employee with the respondent-Panchayat, and upon termination of his services, he instituted Civil Suit No.175 of 1995, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed Appeal No.10 of 2000 before the Appellate Court. It is the further case of the applicant that he was mis-advised, and was asked to approach the Labour Commissioner, who referred the matter to the Labour Court vide its reference (LCJ) No.244 of 2004. It further appears from the averments made in the application that after dismissal of the said Reference by the Labour Court by order dated 13.4.2012, Special Civil Application No.12347 of 2012 was filed by the applicant before this Court to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 13.4.2012 of the Labour Court. At that stage, the applicant realized that appeal was wrongly prosecuted and thereafter, aforesaid Special Civil Application No.12347 of 2012 came to be withdrawn on 14.9.2012 with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. Then he approached this Court by way of the Second Appeal.
4. In the above background, Second Appeal has been preferred, in which the delay as aforesaid has occasioned. From the sequence of events narrated above, it could not be gainsaid that passage of time leading to delay in filing the appeal has been explained. Delay is due to applicant pursuing remedy before the Labour Court after dismissal of the suit, which was a wrong forum to appeal against the Civil Court's judgment and order. It is not possible to accept the objection raised by the other side, which was taken by filing an affidavit-in-reply, and furthered by vehement submissions made by learned advocate, that the applicant's conduct lacked in bonafide and that he was indolent.
Once it is found that the applicant was prosecuting before the wrong forum, bonafides could not be doubted. The applicant by furnishing explanation on that count, has made out a sufficient cause. No litigant would like to agitate his grievance and rights before a wrong forum. The conduct of the applicant in approaching the Labour Court, upon so advised, did not discard diligence on his part in seeking ventilation of his grievances. In choosing remedy, it is obvious that the applicant was guided by the advice of legal experts which were misdirected. It created no fault for the applicant.
The applicant is therefore entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. No culpable negligence is attributed to the applicant. The applicant was acting bonafide and had approached the wrong forum, which resulted into delay in preferring the appeal. Hence, delay deserves to be condoned.
7. This application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) chandresh Page 3 of 3