V KANDAN Vs. MADRAS DOCK LABOUR BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J., in W.P. No. 6381 of 1980 dismissing the same in limine.

(2.) THE circumstances under which the writ petition came to be filed before this Court can be briefly set out. THE petitioner, who was a Reserve Pool Mazdoor, was dismissed from service on 6th March, 1980 by order of the Deputy Chairman of the Dock Labour Board, who was the disciplinary authority. THE order of dismissal was served on the appellant on 22nd March, 1980. However, he filed an appeal against the order of dismissal to the Chairman of the Dock Labour Board, the appellate authority, on 25th April, 1980, after a delay of 20 days. In his memorandum of grounds of appeal, a prayer has been added for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the said appeal petition the appellant has been served with a communication, dated 12th May, 1980, by the Secretary of the Dock Labour Board, which is as follows -"With reference to his appeal, dated 24th April, 1980, I am directed to inform Shri V. Kandan, Reserve Pool Mazdoor No. 1924, that as required under cl. 48 of the Madras Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme 1956, every appeal shall be preferred within fourteen days of the date of receipt of the order appealed against. As your present appeal is time-barred, the same cannot be entertained. As desired, copies of deposition of witnesses and the entire enquiry proceedings will be furnished to you in due course." *Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 6381 of 1980 and in that writ petition the said contention advanced by the petitioner was that though the appeal was filed belatedly the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Chairman, Dock Labour Board, had the power to admit the appeal after excusing the delay, that such power has not been exercised by the appellate authority and that the communication sent by the Secretary, more or less rejecting the appeal, is in contravention of Regulation 48(5) proviso of the Madras Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956. However, the learned Judge, before whom the writ petition came up for hearing, has observed that the reasons given by the petitioner are no satisfactory, that, therefore, there is no sufficient explanation for the delay, and that as such the writ petition cannot be admitted. In this view, the writ petition came to be dismissed.