MUNICIPAL BOARD, SHAHPURA Vs. SHAUKAT HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merit of the application under Section of the Limitation Act. The appeal is barred by almost two and half years. The facts of the case are that a reference was made by notification sated 26th July, 1988 in respect of validity of termination of services of the respondent workman in 1986. The award was made on 27.7.91. The counsel ex presenting the appellant was not present before the Labour Court and the proceedings were conducted ex-parte. Interestingly, when none has cared to appear during three years pendency of dispute before the Labour Court soon after the award was made on 27.7.91 and published thereafter, a writ petition was filed challenging the award dated 27.7.91, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 6.10.99 considering that there was no sufficient cause for non-appearance before the Labour Court and also considering that the petitioner had not made any attempt to say that even after coming into the knowledge of the award he made an attempt to file application for setting aside the ex-parte award to be heard on merits. The order was passed by the learned Single Judge in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner, Municipal Board, Shahpura and counsel for the respondents.

(2.) In spite of this, no attempt was made to challenge the order dated 6.10.99 until filing of the appeal on 22nd April, 2002. The affidavit attached with the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has tried to throw the entire 15 burden on their own counsel without disclosing anything why the Officer-in-charge who was entrusted to file the appeal could not have any contact with his counsel for more than two years to know as to what is happening in the case. The Officer-in-charge who has furnished the affidavit has not been able to explain what was the reason for which he has not contacted his counsel to know about the pendency and progress of the case since long. It appears that for pleading want of knowledge burden has been thrown on the counsel as an easy excuse, to save the delinquency of appellants' own officer, firstly in not conducting the case before the Tribunal and then not conducting the case before the learned Single Judge by 25 assisting the counsel as and when the case was listed and thereafter, not caring to file appeal in time.

(3.) Right from the service of notice reference from Labour Court there has been callous negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the litigation at every stage. The appellants are not in any way ignorant poor litigants. We also do not find any merit in this case.