SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER UKAI CIRCLE Vs. ARJUNBHAI DABHUBHAI GODAVALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. By this civil application prayer has been made for condonation of delay which has caused in filing of the appeal. In this application, it is not mentioned as to how many days' delay is there in filing of the appeal. From the office note I find that the appeal is barred by 75 days. Though the appeal has been titled as first appeal, provisions of Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been mentioned at the top of the appeal, but it is an appeal under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, appeal before this Court does lie in case where substantial question of law is involved therein. To consider this application made for condonation of delay caused in filing of the appeal, I heard the learned Counsel for the applicant on merits of the matter also. But, after making long submissions he is unable to make out a case where it can be said that even any question of law, much less a substantial question of law does arise in the appeal. So, when the appeal itself has no merits, no useful purpose will be served in condoning the delay which has been caused in filing thereof before this Court. Otherwise also I find from the application that the applicants have totally failed to make out any cause, much less a sufficient cause by which they can be said to have been prevented from filing this appeal in this Court within the period of limitation.

(2.) The judgment of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was delivered on 7-5-1997. Excluding the time taken by the said officer for giving certified copy of the judgment to the applicant, the appeal has to be filed before this Court on or before 11-7-1997. But this appeal has been filed before this Court on 24/09/1997, i.e., after more than 2 months and 13 days of expiry of the limitation. Certified copy of the judgment of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was received by the Superintending Engineer, Surat Irrigation Circle, Surat on 5-6-1997, which was forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Ukai Left Bank Canal Division No. 2, Valod on 9-6-1997. This application is supported by the affidavit of D. B. Surati, Deputy Executive Engineer, Ukai Left Bank Canal Sub- Division, Ukai, and the averments made in the application have been verified on the basis of his knowledge, belief and information. On the basis of such affidavit it is difficult to accept the averments made in this application to be correct. Otherwise also necessary documents in support of the averments has also not been produced along with the civil application. Be that as it may. If we go by the facts as stated in this application and are to be accepted, on their face value, it is clear that the matter has been taken very casually, negligently and carelessly at all stages. In case appeal is not filed within limitation, as prescribed under the Limitation Act, a valuable right has accrued to the other side and while considering the question of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal this aspect has also to be kept in mind by the Court. Another important fact which has to be kept in mind by the Court is that the appeal is arising from the judgment of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, and in such matters where the legislature has provided for appeal only on substantial question of law, the appellant has to take all procedural formalities expeditiously so that the appeal is filed within limitation. The whole emphasis of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that this appeal has been filed by the Government and this Court should take lenient view and condone the delay. It is true that while considering the matter of condonation of delay in filing appeal the Court may have a liberal view and approach. But that does not mean that the delay has to be condoned on mere asking by the appellant or the appellant is the State Government. Further, where the appellant is State Government or its officers, normal plea in the application filed for condonation of delay caused in filing of the appeal is that the procedural formalities has taken long time. This stock phrase ground cannot be taken to be an excuse, in all the cases when Limitation Act, 1963 has prescribed limitation for filing appeal, which Act is equally applicable to the appeals of the Government also. It is understandable that out of hundred cases in one case there is delay and there may be justifiable cause for filing the same beyond limitation, but my experience goes in this Court that in the appeals filed by the State Government exception is to file appeal in time, otherwise all the appeals are filed beyond the period of limitation.

(3.) So liberal view taken by the Courts has been taken to be a rule by the State Government and its officers as if they have been given licence by the Courts to file appeals beyond the period of limitation, and then come out with a lame ground for condonation of delay, i.e., time taken in procedural formalities. Facts of this case clearly speak how officers of the State Government have taken this matter casually and lightly. Limitation prescribed is only 60 days for the appeal to be filed under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This short period of limitation is prescribed by the Parliament for obvious reason that the matter of compensation payable to a workman in case of injury, or the dependents in case of death, may be decided finally at an early date. So both on merits of the appeal as well as on the ground that the applicants have not made out any cause, much less sufficient cause, in this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, this civil application is dismissed.