Jharkhand High Court
Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Bali Ram Sukla on 5 August, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.173 of 2007 Eastern Coalfields Limited, Parascole Colliery, P.O. Kajoragram, Burdwan) West Bengal through Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Dy. C.M.E. ...... Appellant Versus Bali Ram Sukla ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY For the Appellant : Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate 23/ 05.08.2014 I.A. No.1220 of 2008 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 499 days in presenting the appeal against the judgment and award dated 03.12.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court cum Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Dhanbad in connection with W.C. Case No.4/1997.
2. It is contended that the judgment pronounced was not within the knowledge of the appellant and they could learn only when letter No.1718 dated 21.09.2006, sent by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was received by them. Thereafter, Deputy Chief Personal Manager, Kajora area wrote a letter to the advocate concerned to suggest what course of action should be taken. Thereafter, further correspondences were made by concerned officials and then appeal was filed. Since appellant is a P.S.U. and they will have to make correspondences and do formalities before presenting an appeal, that caused delay and therefore, delay of 499 days in presenting the appeal may be condoned.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the argument and submitted that no cogent ground has been given in the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant was all along contesting the proceeding through their counsel and the judgment was pronounced in open Court. When the appellant did not satisfy the award within stipulated time, information by the Commissioner, Workmen's 2. Compensation vide letter No.1718 dated 21.09.2006 was given to satisfy the award. Thereafter, further course of action was decided by the appellant and that too was not done in time and the appeal has been presented after delay of about one and half year. Since the ground taken in the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not tenable, the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. It is apparent from the judgment that the appellant had contested the proceeding. In the circumstances, in cannot be presumed that the judgment pronounced was not within the knowledge of the appellant. No prompt action to prefer appeal appears to have been taken by the appellant. They sat tight over the matter and awakened only when notice by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was given to satisfy the award. The grounds taken in I.A. No.1220 of 2008 do not appears to be satisfactory and tenable and therefore, I do not feel inclined to condone the delay of 499 days in presenting the appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No.1220 of 2008 stands dismissed.
5. Consequently, this appeal also stands dismissed as time barred. (D. N. Upadhyay, J.) NKC