Gujarat High Court
Sarabhai Chemicals vs Deputy Director , Employees State ... on 17 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6269/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NO. 6269 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 35693 of 2024
======================================
SARABHAI CHEMICALS & ANR.
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION
======================================
Appearance:
Ms. PRAVALIKHA BATTHINI ADVOCATE FOR GANDHI LAW
ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Applicant Nos. 1,2
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Respondent No. 1
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 17/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. The present application is filed seeking condonation of
delay of 84 days caused in preferring the captioned appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has referred to the
averments made in the application and has submitted that the
impugned judgment and order was pronounced on 25 th July,
2024 whereby the ESI application preferred by the present
appellant under Section 75 of the ESI Act has been rejected
thereby confirming the order dated 4th August, 2022 passed
by the ESI Corporation whereby the corporation has directed
the present applicants to pay the amount towards the delay in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6269/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
payment of ESI contribution for the period from May, 2013 to
December, 2017. It was further submitted that the authorized
signatory of the applicant company was travelling outside
India during the month of October and November, 2024. On
his return, he was not keeping well for brief period. During
this period, he was unable to affirm the necessary documents.
Because of the aforesaid unavoidable circumstances, the delay
of 84 days has crept in.
4. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate
has submitted that there was no inaction or willful negligence
on the part of the applicants to approach this Court belatedly.
All through-out the applicants were in fact pursuing the
matter to present the appeal. Learned advocate for the
applicant has further submitted that the opinion of the
concerned advocate was sought for further course of action
and as advised had immediately preferred the captioned
appeal. Learned advocate had therefore urged this Court to
take a liberal approach and condone the delay caused in
preferring captioned appeal.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent - corporation has
vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions and
submitted that no sufficient explanation has been tendered to
condone the delay.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and having perused the
explanation offered in the application, this Court is inclined to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6269/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
exercise its discretion noticing the fact that there was no
malafide intention or willful negligence or inaction on the part
of the applicant to not to approach in appeal within the
prescribed period of limitation. Noticing the fact that the
application preferred by the appellant corporation has been
not entertained by the ESI Court, the cause has arose for the
applicant to approach in appeal, which would otherwise fix
the liability of the appellant company to make the payment
towards ESI contribution. The delay of 84 days caused in
preferring the captioned appeal is therefore condoned. Rule
made absolute. No order as to costs.
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.)
AMAR RATHOD...
