KING AND COMPANY CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS Vs. BAHBOOD ALI KHAN ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF LABOUR GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .An order for payment of gratuity and arrears of wages was passed in favour of the respondent under the Payment of Wages Act by the concerned Authority on 3rd January, 1964. The appeal should have been filed within 30 days, the last date being 2nd February, 1964. The appeal was, however, presented in the Court of the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 4th April, 1964, there being nearly a delay of two months. Therefore, the appellant filed a petition Under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The respondent objected contending that there was ho sufficient cause for the delay in presenting the appeal, and also on the ground that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the appeals Under the Payment of Wages Act.

(2.) The learned Judge found that the petitioner has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. But, he was of the view that the new Limitation Act (XXXVI of 1953) cannot apply because the proceeding Under the Payment of Wages Act was instituted before the coming into force of the new Limitation Act, and it is on this ground that he dismissed the petition Under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Judge assumed in his order that if the new Limitation Act applied, section 5 of the Limitation Act also applies. In this Revision Petition the respondent is ex parte and is not represented by Counsel. So, I have not the advantage of hearing the other side. The view taken by the learned Judge is thai Under section 31 (V) of the new Limitation Act, the new Act does not apply to the present case. Section 31 (V) reads thus :- "31. Nothing in this Act shall (b) affect any suit appeal or application instituted, preferred or made before, and pending at such commencement."

(3.) In the present case, the order under appeal was passed on 3rd January, 1964. The new Limitation Act became Law on 1st January, 1964. Therefore, by the time the order sought to be appealed against was passed, the new Limitation Act came into force. But, the lower Court expressed the view that it does not apply in view of section 31 clause (b) of the new Limitation Act referred to above. In my opinion, the learned Judge is in error in thinking that clause (b) of section 31 applies to a case like the present one. The order under appeal was passed after the coming into force of this Act, and therefore, the appeal could not be said to be pending at the commence ment of the Act. Hence, the provisions of the new Limitation Act apply The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the file of the lower Court for disposal in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.