DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Vs. AMARSINH NATVARSINH PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT application has been filed by the applicant herein, original -defendant No.1, District Development Officer, Kheda District Panchayat, Nadiad, for condonation of delay of 1463 days in filing the Appeal against the order dated 30th July 2001 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nadiad in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 18/93 [Old Workmen's Compensation Case No. 8/87].

(2.) IT is submitted in the application explaining the cause for delay in preferring the First Appeal that the office of the applicant was not informed about disposal of the Workmen's Compensation Case after the judgment and order was passed in 2001 and that on enquiry file pertaining to the case filed by the respondent No.1 was not traceable in the office of the applicant. It is also further submitted that the reply was filed by the applicant in the Workmen's Compensation Case and thereafter the applicant could not appear before the Court because he was never informed about the progress in the case; ultimately the case was disposed of in the year 2001; even at that time no information/details were supplied to the office of the applicant; and no steps were taken by the applicant in the matter for filing appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th July 2001. It is also further submitted in Para 6 that when writ petition was filed before this Court seeking appropriate direction for enforcement of the award for appropriate direction for early disposal of the recovery application filed by the respondent No.1 the applicant came to know about disposal of the case. However even at that stage enquiry was made by the office of the applicant but except copy of the award which was forwarded along with copy of petition, no other details were made available. It is further submitted that in the meantime after disposal of the writ petition recovery application was disposed of on 14.9.2004 and at that stage the advocate for the Panchayat advised that the office of the applicant must challenge the decision of the learned Commissioner delivered on 30th July 2001. Considering the above, Shri Nikhil Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Pradeep Patel, learned advocate for the applicant requested to condone the delay.

(3.) NOW , in light of the above averments in the application and the case on behalf of the applicant, the present application for condonation of delay of 1463 days in preferring the appeal is required to be considered. To consider the correctness of the above averments, this Court directed the office to place the papers of Special Civil Application No. 8507 of 2003 filed by the respondent workman for an appropriate writ, direction or order on the respondent Panchayat to deposit the amount of compensation and in the alternative to direct the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to expedite the Misc. Recovery application No. 32 of 2001 filed on 12.11.2002, and it appears from the record that the said Special Civil Application was filed in the month of May 2003 and this Court initially issued the notice on 11.7.2003 making it returnable on 27.9.2003. However as the respondents were not served, this Court directed to issue fresh notice upon the applicant as well as other respondents on 4.11.2003 making the notice returnable on 9th December 2003. It appears that the applicant herein was served in the month of December 2003. It is also required to be noted that along with the said petition a copy of the award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was also annexed. Thus, at least in the month of December 2003 itself the applicant was aware of the judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Still, no efforts were made by the applicant to get the certified copy and challenge the said judgment and award immediately. It appears that certified copy of the impugned judgment and order was applied by the applicant only on 28.9.2004, i.e., even after the order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dated 14.9.2004 passed in Recovery/Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 2001. It is also required to be noted that Misc. Recovery Application No. 32/2001 was filed for Recovery Certificate by the original -claimant in the year 2001 and notice was served upon the applicant herein in the year 2001 itself. Therefore, even the contention, that the applicant was not aware of the judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation even till Special Civil Application was filed, cannot be accepted and it is factually incorrect. Thus, there is no explanation at least from the date of receipt of the notice of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8507 of 2003. It is also required to be noted that even the certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was delivered to the applicant on 30th September 2004 whereas the present Appeal has been filed only in the month of December 2004, more particularly on 6th December 2004. Thus, there is no explanation even for the period between 30th September 2004 and 6th December 2004. Thus, apart from the fact that there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay of 1463 days, even the cause shown that the applicant was not aware of the judgment and order cannot be accepted and it is factually incorrect. Considering the above and the gross delay of 1463 days, the delay caused in preferring the First Appeal cannot be condoned and accordingly the present Civil Application is required to be dismissed.