EXPRESS PHOTO QSS COLOUR LAB.,RANCHI Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR,EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the appellant though could not succeed in convincing this Court to hold that the order impugned is not valid, he ultimately, on the strength of the decision rendered by Patna High Court in the case of Mosmat Ram Kali Kuer and others v. Indradeo Choudhary and another reported in A.I.R. 1985 Pat. 148, confined himself with a prayer requesting for an opportunity to the appellant to again approach the Tribunal to file application for condonation of delay, though by Mistake such application for condoning the delay was not filed when the main application was filed. Admittedly, the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal only on the ground that though the main application was barred by limitation, no application for condoning the delay was filed.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant strenuously submitted that though he has got merit in the main case, he has not been allowed to argue the case on merits and ultimately, his liberty has been curtailed by dismissing the main application, merely on the ground that the case is barred by limitation.

(3.) IF such an application is filed, the Tribunal will entertain the same and will issue notice to the other side, giving opportunity to file counter -affidavit to the petition for condonation of delay and will find out as to whether there is in accordance with law. If the Tribunal chooses to condone the delay on the basis of the sufficient cause, shown for condoning the delay, it may then consider the case on merits.