Gauhati High Court
The North Eastern Electric Power ... vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 8 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010192482020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/1/2021
THE NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(A GOVERNMNET OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, BROOKLAND COMPOUND, LOWER NEW
COLONY, SHILLONG-793003, MEGHALAYA
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI
MARG, NEW DELHI-110001
2:THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN
R.K. MISSION ROAD
BIRUBARI
GUWAHATI-781016
3:THE DY. CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
OFFICE OF THE DY. CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN
R.K. MISSION ROAD
BIRUBARI
GUWAHATI-781016
4:THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN
R.K. MISSION ROAD
BIRUBARI
Page No.# 2/5
GUWAHATI-781016
5:SARBESWAR BORA
EX SECURITY GUARD (MLHG)
R/O 1 NO. BARUATIGAON
P.O.-BETANIPUM
P.S.-SILAPATHAR
DIST-DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN-78705
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D SENAPATI
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 08.08.2022
Heard Ms. S. Todi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner and Mr. K. M. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Respondent No.5. I have also heard Mrs. A. Gayan, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Although, the instant petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India but taking into account the scope and ambit of the
impugned order dated 09.11.2020, this Court treats this application as an
application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The order impugned in the instant proceedings is an order whereby the
Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) at Guwahati had rejected the
Memo of Appeal on the ground that the said authority had no jurisdiction to
entertain the Memo of Appeal beyond the period of 120 days as has been
mandated in Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Page No.# 3/5
At this stage, it may be relevant herein to take note of that vide an order
dated 18.11.2019, the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)
Guwahati in Reference Application No.PG/48 (41)/2019-G/A had issued a
direction to the Petitioner herein pay Rs.2,82,542/- to the Respondent No.5
herein within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order under
Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The said order was received
on 21.11.2019 as per the Petitioner. In terms with Section 7(7) of the Payment
of Gratuity Act, an appeal can be preferred to the appropriate Government or
such of authority within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The
proviso to the said Section provides that the appropriate Government or the
appellate authority, as the case may be, if it is satisfied that the Appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period
of 60 days, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days. In view of the
said proviso to Section 7(7) the Appellant ought to have preferred the appeal
within 60 days from 21.11.2019 and by virtue of proviso to Section 7(7), the
Appellant would have been entitled to a further period of 60 days provided the
appellant is able to sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within 60 days
from 21.11.2019.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the appeal was filed on
03.11.2020 and the amount directed to be paid by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central) Guwahati, i.e. the Controlling Authority was deposited
before the Appellate Authority on 29.10.2020.
The Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central) at Guwahati rejected the said appeal on the ground that the said
authority did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal beyond the period
of 120 days from the date of receipt of the order. At this stage, this Court would
Page No.# 4/5
like to take into consideration the order passed by the Supreme Court on
10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3/2020 wherein the Supreme Court at
Paragraph No.5 had categorically observed that the period of limitation from
15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded while computing the period of
limitation by any Court or Tribunals. Paragraph No.5 of the said judgment is
quoted herein below.
"5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned
counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and
adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No.21 of 2022 with the following
direction:
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the
subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is
directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand
excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any
general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on
03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period
between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance
period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period
of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of
limitation remaining with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days,
that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under
Section 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c)
of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other
laws, which prescribed period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings,
outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and
termination of proceedings."
Taking into account the said order of the Supreme Court dated
Page No.# 5/5
10.01.2022, this Court therefore, sets aside the order dated 09.11.2020 with a
direction to Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central) at Guwahati to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
With above observations and directions, the instant petition stands
disposed of.
Taking into account that the parties are duly represented before this
Court, the parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on
19.09.2022.
Interim order passed, if any, stands vacated.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
