M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS PROJECT OFFICER BINESH SHARMA SON OF LALDEO SHARMA RESIDENT OF KUJU COLLIERY, P.O. Vs. SARLU MAHATO SON OF LATU MAHATO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DULMI, P.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 5437 of 2016 Heard Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the Interlocutory Application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, being I.A. No. 5437 of 2016, wherein prayer has been made to condone the delay of 38 days in filing the instant appeal.

(2.) Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 38 days in preferring the instant LPA. The delay is not intentional and there is no latches on part of the appellant. The order was passed on 27.1.2016 in WP(L) No. 5469/2014. Thereafter, the appellant contacted the office of the lawyer to obtain the certified copy of the said order. Thereafter, the lawyer applied for the certified copy and obtained the same and forwarded the same to the appellant-company. Thereafter the file was scrutinized by the concerned department of the appellant-company and some legal opinion was obtained from their lawyer and ultimately, the appellant-company took a decision to prefer an appeal for which, approval was required to be taken from the Director (Finance) of the Company. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Director (Finance), who also sought for certain documents and record and ultimately, he was pleased to grant approval for filing the instant appeal and thereafter, appellant-company contacted their panel lawyer and after discussing the matter, got the appeal drafted and the same was presented for filing on 21.4.16. Therefore, the delay of 38 days in filing the instant appeal has occurred, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment in the case of Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam (dead) by Legal Representatives reported in (2015) 3 SCC 569 , wherein there was a delay of 1373 days and the same was condoned. In view of the above decision, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to condone the delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently objects the prayer made for condoning the delay of 38 days in preferring the instant appeal by filing a counter affidavit stating therein that this limitation petition is frivolous, misconceived and not maintainable. The appellant-company in order to frustrate the very object of Sec. 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has preferred the present LPA and he further submits that this LPA has been filed against the interim order dated 27.1.2016 in order to harass the workmen and, therefore, deliberate delay has been caused just to deprive the workmen to get the fruit of Sec. 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He relies upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Amarnath Yadav reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422 , wherein, it has been held that the delay caused by moving the file from one department to another department is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. In the aforesaid judgment, the decision rendered in the case of Postmaster General Vs. Living Media India Ltd., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 , has been relied, wherein, Honourable the Supreme Court has deprecated such practices on the part of the Government authority/Departments in the following words.