NATIONAL TOBACCO CO EMPLOYEES UNION JULLUNDUR Vs. MANOHAR SINGH PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT JULLUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO Letters Patent Appeals, L. P. As. Nos. 243 and 244 of 1968 were filed by the Workmen of Messrs. National Tobacco Company of India (hereinafter called the Company) on 15th of April, 1968, both directed against the judgment of Pandit, J. , of 27th February, 1968. * These appeals were admitted by the Motion Bench on 25th April, 1968. In both appeals applications have been made for extension of time under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Notice of these applications was directed to be sent to Mr. Bhagirath Dass, Counsel for the respondent-company for 1st May, 1968. When the applications under Section 5 came for hearing on 1st of May , 1968 , before this Bench, Mr. Bhagirath Dass declined to accept service and consequently fresh notices were issued to the company itself and now Mr. Bhagirath Dass has appeared to oppose these application.

(2.) THE date of the judgment appealed from is 27th of February, 1968. Two applications for copies by; the applicants were made on 19th of March, 1968. These were ready for delivery on 25th March, 1968. After deducting the requisite time for copies the appeals should have been filed on 4th April, 1968 As mentioned before, the letters patent appeals were, however, filed on 15th of April , 1968. Eleven days after the limitation had expired. According to the affidavits filed with the appeal and the additional affidavit of 20-5-1968 by the learned Counsel for the applications Mr. Sahni the certified copies of the judgment of Pandit, J. , were applied for on 19th March, 1968, admittedly within the period of limitation. It is stayed that the clerk of Mr. Sahni, now no longer in his employment, went to the copying Department "near about 26th March , 1968" to make enquiries. One Shri Tharia Ram, of the coping Branch had gone on leave and Mr. Sahni was informed by his substitute that the record of the case had not been received from the Record Room and that "it would take some time for the certified copy to be ready". Thereafter, Mr. Sahni sent his clerk a number of times to the Copying Department and each time he was told by the person working at the seat of Shri Tharia Ram that 'the copy was not yet ready". It was on 8th of April , 1968, according to the affidavit filed with the appeal , that a formal notice from the superintendent, Copying Branch, was affixed ion the Bar Association Library about these copies. Presumably in this notice the applications Counsel was called upon a make the payment of balance of the copying fee. Mr. Sahni states that he was taken aback when he read this notice on 8th of April, 1968 , and immediately went to the Copying Branch where the date of the preparation of the copy had been put as 25th March, 1968, in the certified copies. According to the counsel, he told the Superintendent of the Copying Branch that he had been informed by the substitute of Shri Tharia Ram that the copies were not ready on the date when they purport to have been ready for delivery.

(3.) ACCORDING to the first affidavit of Mr. Sahni filed with the appeal, he sent a telegram to his clients on the morning of 9th of April 1968, to this effect: