Delhi High Court
Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd vs Raju on 21 April, 2025
Author: Dharmesh Sharma
Bench: Dharmesh Sharma
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 21st April, 2025
+ FAO 382/2017 & CM APPL. 35763/2017
SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Achin Goel & Mr.
Deepak Jaiswal, Advs.
versus
RAJU .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
FAO-382/2017 & CM APPL. 35764/2017
1. No one appeared for the respondent when the matter was called.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of
the record, this Court proceeds to decide the instant appeal under Section
30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 ["EC Act"] preferred on
behalf of the appellant assailing the judgment-cum-award dated 19.05.2016
passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, District-
West, Delhi ["Commissioner"] whereby the claim petition for the death of
deceased workman Deepak has been allowed and respondent no. 1
/claimant has been granted a total compensation of Rs. 7,98,490/- with
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 17.09.2012 till
actual payment as per Section 4A of the EC Act. Further, he has been made
entitled to funeral charges of Rs. 5,000/-.
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:22.04.2025
16:05:59
3. Suffice to state that the deceased was claimed to be engaged as a
Helper and he had died due to electrocution at the premises of the
appellant.
4. However, before we proceed on the merits of the matter, it appears
that the present appeal is filed after a delay of 530 days. The appellant in
the application has submitted that matter was lastly listed before the
learned Commissioner on 16.05.2016 and the appellant was given an
impression by the Staff that the orders are yet to be passed on the claim
petition and might take some time.
5. It is stated that an associate counsel for the main counsel engaged by
the appellant kept on making periodical enquiries and it was in the second
week of September, 2016 that they were informed that the order was ready.
It is stated that the appellant applied for a certified copy of the order on
22.09.2016 but no file/documents were supplied to it. It is then stated that
the appellant was shocked and surprised to receive the recovery notice
dated 25.04.2017 for a sum of Rs. 7,98,490/- from the Court of the learned
Commissioner and then on enquiries, it was found that the impugned order
dated 19.05.2016 had been passed.
6. It is stated that the appellant was under bonafide impression prior to
25.04.2017 that the case has been closed and the claim of the respondent
has been dismissed by the learned Commissioner; and after examining the
order and the relevant documents on 25.05.2017 instructions were given to
their counsel to prefer an appeal but the same could not be filed due to
summer vacations in June-2017 and eventually the appeal was finalized on
31.08.2017, which came to be instituted before this Court for hearing on
27.09.2017.
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:22.04.2025
16:05:59
7. Ex facie, the aforesaid grounds espoused by the appellant do not
constitute sufficient cause. Evidently, the entire blame is being shifted
scandalously upon the office of the learned Commissioner. It is not
fathomable that the appellant was not aware of the passing of the impugned
order dated 19.05.2016, or in the alternative there were any factors that
prevented them from ascertaining the passing of the impugned order.
8. At the same time, assuming for the sake of convenience that the
knowledge of passing of the impugned order was acquired on receiving
recovery notice on 25.04.2017, even then the appeal was filed belatedly
beyond the period of limitation. It is but apparent that the appellant is
taking the court for a ride. The appellant has been sleeping over its legal
right for a very long time.
9. There are, therefore, no sufficient grounds to condone the delay of
530 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the application bearing
CM APPL. No. 35764/2017 is dismissed.
10. Consequently, the present appeal also stands dismissed.
11. The pending application stands disposed of.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
APRIL 21, 2025/Sadiq
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:22.04.2025
16:05:59
