LAWS(KER)-2005-9-62

DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. ABEL

Decided On September 05, 2005
DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER Appellant
V/S
KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Government have got the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond sixty days from the date of receipt of the order under Section 8(5) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 is the question posed for consideration in these cases.

(2.) Writ petitioner in O.P. No. 14892 of 1999 was served with the final determination order for the periods 1993-94 and 1994-95 by the District Executive Officer of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board by registered post which was returned with the postal endorsement "addressee unclaimed". Appeals were preferred before the Government on 8.4.1999 after a period of more than four years against the final determination order for the year 1993-94 and after a period of more than three years against the final determination order for the year 1994-95. Contention was raised before Government that final determination orders were wrongly and falsely returned by the postman to the District Executive Officer with the endorsement "addressee unclaimed" and therefore appeals preferred were liable to be entertained. Explanation was not acceptable to the appellate authority and the appeals were rejected as time barred.

(3.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time barred and also the final determination orders invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Contention was raised that the final determination orders were not served on the petitioner and that the endorsement made by the postman as "unclaimed" was not correct. Further it was also pointed out that even if there was delay in filing the appeals before the appellate authority, appellate authority has got power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Contention was also raised that even if the appeals are not maintainable, petitioner is entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.