PRAKASH CHANDRA DAS Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OPPOSITE party No. 2 claiming to be the Secretary of the IPISTEEL Employees Union filed T.S. No. 303 of 1996 for declaration that he and others were validly elected as the office bearers of the Union and defendants 1 to 5 (present petitioners) were not elected as office bearers of the trade union and for injunction restraining the said defendants from interfering with the functioning of the trade union. An application for injunction was filed in the said suit praying for restraining defendants 1 to 5 from interfering with the functioning of the trade union. The trial Court by order dated 20.1.1997 while refusing to grant injunction as prayed for, passed an order appointing the Labour Commissioner as the custodian of the trade union till the next election of the office bearers is held and directed the Labour Commissioner to take steps for holding such election of the trade union. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15 of 1997 was filed by the present petitioners against the aforesaid order of the trial Court challenging the direction of the trial Court for holding the election. Since the application was admittedly filed beyond the period of limitation, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal. But order dated 20.6.1997 the appellate Court condoned the delay ex parte and passed order of stay of the order of the trial Court. The present opposite party No. 2, had moved the appellate Court for vacating the order of stay but as the case was being adjourned, he filed Civil Revision No. 145 of 1997 in the High Court. This Court at the stage of admission without issuing notice to the other parties disposed of the Civil Revision, directing the appellate Court to reconsider the question of condonation of delay in presence of the parties. Thereafter, the matter was heard before the appellate Court in presence of the parties and by order dated 25.7.1997 the appellate Court dismissed Misc.Case No. 15 of 1997 on the ground of limitation. The present Civil Revision has been filed, by the defendants -appellants against the aforesaid order of the District Judge.

(2.) IN the present Civil Revision, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1623 (State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors.) as followed in AIR 1997 Rajasthan 134 (Urban Improvement Trust v. Poonam Chand) has contended that in the interest of justice, the appellate Court should have condoned the delay and disposed of the appeal on merit.

(3.) IT has to be seen against the aforesaid well settled principles relating to condonation of delay, whether the present petitioners had shown sufficient cause and whether the appellate Court acted with material irregularity in refusing to condone the delay.