Allahabad High Court
State vs A.D.J. on 5 January, 2010
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29617 of 1994 Petitioner :- State Respondent :- A.D.J. Petitioner Counsel :- S.C.,N.B. Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,Y.K. Sinha Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge- I, Bulandshahr dated 8th April, 1994 rejecting the application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. This Court finds that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the payment of Wages Act was made on 9th December, 1992 while the appeal was preferred on 14th May, 1993. The period prescribed for filing of the appeal under the Payment of Wages Act is 30 days. Therefore the appeal was barred by limitation by nearly 6 months. Delay was explained by way of affidavit filed in support of application under Section 5. It was stated that under wrong advise of the counsel, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was ultimately dismissed on 10th May, 1993 and thereafter the appeal was filed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order rejecting the Section 5 application is hyper technical in nature. It is settled law that all Courts of law are established for furtherance of interest of substantial justice and not to obstruct the same on technicalities. Reference-- Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply; AIR 1969 SC 1267, wherein it has been held that if substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. No procedure in a Court of law should be allowed to defeat the cause of substantial justice on some technicalities. Reference-Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. vs. Dominion of India & Ors; (1984) 3 SCC 46.
The Court in the facts of the present case finds that the delay in filing of the appeal is to the satisfaction of the Court. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Ist Additional District Judge dated 8th April, 1994 rejecting the Section 5 application for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby quashed. The application is granted. The appeal is treated to be within time. Let the appeal be registered and decided after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned provided it is made competent within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the court concerned.
The present writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.
Order date:-05.01.2010 Sushil/-