E S I C Vs. JITENDRA THAKORBHAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for condonation of delay of 1126 days caused in filing the appeal against the judgment and order passed by ESI Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Application No. 16 of 1998 dated 10 -09 -1994.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Sachin D. Vasavada for the Corporation submitted that the judgment and order in ESI Application No. 16 of 1998 came to be passed by the learned Judge on 10 -09 -1994 and the certified copy thereof was applied on 03 -08 -2007 and the same was made available to the applicant -Corporation on 16 -10 -2007. The learned Advocate further submitted that neither the concerned Insurance Inspector nor the learned Advocate representing the applicant intimated about the outcome of the aforesaid proceedings to the Legal Department of the Corporation. After the papers were received by the Corporation, the same were sent to the higher authorities for the purpose of seeking approval for preferring an appeal. The competent authority, after completing all the procedural formalities, sought the opinion of the lawyer, and after obtaining the necessary opinion of the lawyer, the competent authority granted the approval. The learned Advocate submitted that due to aforesaid formalities, lot of time was consumed in preferring the appeal. After completing the aforesaid formalities, the papers were handed -over to the learned Advocate for the applicant for filing an appeal before the High Court. In the meantime, the period of limitation for filing the appeal before the High Court expired. Thus, the delay of 1126 days was caused in preferring the appeal. The learned Advocate submitted that as sufficient cause has been made out for the delay caused in preferring the appeal, the application deserves to be allowed and the delay may be condoned. The learned Advocate for the applicant has also filed further affidavit stating therein that the appellant -Corporation received various complaints against the Insurance Inspector and, therefore, the Corporation had withdrawn the charge of ESI Court from the said Insurance Inspector and the copy of the order of reallocating the charges of different Courts to different Insurance Inspectors is also produced.

(3.) THE learned Advocate has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of the submissions canvassed at the Bar: