Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat -Thro Deputy Executive ... vs Dilawarsinh Narendrasinh Jadeja & on 25 August, 2015
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel, N.V.Anjaria
C/CA/8605/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 8605 of 2015
In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 985 of 2015
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7964 of 2013
With
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 985 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7964 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 7935 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 985 of 2015
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT -THRO DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER....Applicant
Versus
DILAWARSINH NARENDRASINH JADEJA & 1....Respondents
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Applicant
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 25/08/2015
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL)
1. Civil Application No. 8605 of 2015 is filed for condonation of delay of 616 days in preferring Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the leaned Single Judge in Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Thu Aug 27 01:45:04 IST 2015 C/CA/8605/2015 ORDER Special Civil Application No. 7964 of 2013. As the delay is for longer period, the explanation submitted by the applicant deserves to be considered with strict approach. Considering the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, we are not at all satisfied that the discretion should be exercised in condoning such long delay. At this stage, we may record that if the delay is for longer period, the Court may take strict view in the matter and if the delay is for shorter period, lenient view may be taken by the Court. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Another,reported at (2010) 5 SCC 459, more particularly the observations made at paras 14 to 16, which read as under:-
"14. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.
15. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Although, no hard Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Thu Aug 27 01:45:04 IST 2015 C/CA/8605/2015 ORDER and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, (L.A.) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 : AIR 1987 SC 1353, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 : JT (1998) 6SC 242 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106.
16. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132 : AIR 1996 SC 1623, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309 : AIR 1996 SC (L&S) 1240, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752 : 2005 SCC (Cri.) 906, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 864.."
If the facts of the present case are examined in light of the above legal position, we do not find that there is any sufficient explanation for condonation of delay.
2. When we called upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Dharmesh Devnani to report to this Court as to whether the impugned order of the learned Single Judge has been complied with or not, in response thereto, he has declared before the Court that since the contempt Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Thu Aug 27 01:45:04 IST 2015 C/CA/8605/2015 ORDER proceedings being Misc. Civil Application No.2851 of 2014 were initiated, the impugned order has been complied with and the same has also been recorded by this Court in the order dated 16.10.2014 when the contempt petition came to be disposed of.
3. If the party to the proceeding has already complied with the order and no reservation is made for compliance subject to the orders in appeal or subject to the right to challenge the order before the higher forum, one possible view is that the order could be said to have been voluntarily complied with. Even if the order is not voluntarily complied with and it is considered as in view of the contempt proceeding, then also, it can be said that the rights of the parties are altered during the period of delay and if the rights are so altered, such would be a valid ground to decline the exercise of discretion for condonation of delay since the discretion to be exercised for condonation of delay would be based on equitable consideration. Under these circumstances, there is additional ground for not exercising discretion to condone the delay since the applicant had already complied with the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. Apart from the above, in the present appeal, when we called upon the learned AGP to address on merits of the appeal, it was submitted that the dispute was raised after ten years from the termination of service of the workman and such would be a good ground in the appeal.
5. If the award passed by the Labour Court is considered, it appears that no proper evidence whatsoever was produced on behalf of the appellant-employer. Further, the learned Single Judge found that the reasoning Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Thu Aug 27 01:45:04 IST 2015 C/CA/8605/2015 ORDER recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned award could not be said to be showing any infirmity. In any case, reinstatement has been awarded by the Labour Court without any back wages. Under these circumstances, we find that even on merits also, there is no case to be considered in the present appeal.
6. In view of the above, when there is no case on merits to be considered in the appeal, no useful purpose will be served by hearing the appeal on merit at the letters patent stage.
7. In view of the above, the Civil Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, Letters Patent Appeal as well as Civil Application for stay also shall stand disposed of.
(JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) pirzada Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Thu Aug 27 01:45:04 IST 2015