Delhi High Court
Employees State Insurance Corp. vs M/S Unicop Technologies Ltd. on 12 April, 2013
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.132/2013 & CM 4219-4221/2013
Decided on : 12th April, 2013
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORP. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr.Yash Tandon for Mr.Bhupesh Narula,
Advocate.
Versus
M/S UNICOP TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ...... Respondent
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated
27.9.2011 by virtue of which the demand raised by the appellant
against the respondent has been quashed and the matter was
remanded back to the appellant/corporation for the purpose of
reassessing the liability of the respondents, keeping in view the
documents which are sought to be produced by the respondents.
2. The issue which was involved in the matter was with regard to the
non-payment of the contribution payable by the respondent under
ESI Act. It was alleged by the appellant corporation that on the
date of inspection, the respondent company was having more than
20 employees drawing wages less than or equal to Rs.6500/- while
as, this was disputed by the respondent. The appeal has been filed
by the appellant alongwith an application bearing CM
no.4220/2013 seeking condonation of 372 days delay in filing the
appeal and CM no.4221/2013 seeking condonation of 32 days
delay in re-filing the appeal.
3. The explanation given for delay in filing the appeal is that the
record of the present appeal got misplaced alongwith few other
case file due to transfer in the department of the
appellant/Corporation, in the month of October/November, 2011
and accordingly, it took some time to trace the file and the file
could be traced only on 28.12.2012. Accordingly, it has been
prayed that the delay of 372 days in filing the appeal be condoned.
The application seeking condonation of delay has been drafted in a
most casual manner without giving the details of the date when the
file was misplaced or lost in shifting; the name of the official who
was handling the file. The application also does not make a
mention that the plea taken by the appellant even constitutes
'sufficient cause' as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4. The law of limitation is same for a private party and the public
sector undertaking or a corporation. It is to be borne in mind that
after the expiry of the period of limitation, a vested right accrues in
favour of the party against whom the appeal is preferred and such
right should not be disturbed easily. However, an appeal may be
entertained after expiry of limitation period but a reasonable and
cogent explanation which constitutes 'sufficient cause' within the
Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be shown. This has not been
done. A casual approach has been adopted by the corporation in
almost all cases and only delayed appeals are being filed by the
corporation.
5. I accordingly do not consider it to be a fit case where the delay be
condoned. Apart from condonation of delay in filing the appeal,
there is another application seeking condonation of delay in re-
filing, which further fortifies that the Corporation and its officers
are acting in a very careless and negligent manner without having
any regard for the time. The application seeking condonation of
delay is dismissed. Since the application seeking condonation of
delay has been dismissed, the appeal has become time barred and
the same is also dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 12, 2013
RN
