Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Saleem vs Gopal Mawasi on 16 May, 2024
1
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 16th Of May, 2024
Misc. Appeal No. 22 Of 2024
BETWEEN:-
Mohd. Saleem S/o Mohd Azeem, Aged About 64
Years, R/o House No. 75, Village Dongar Parasiya
Chikhali Kala Chhindwara (MP)
.....Appellant
(By Ms. Tanishka Aymaan)
AND
1. Gopal Mawasi S/o Doma Mawasi, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Matakola Dhana (Mujawarmal) Teh
Umreth Distt. Chhindwara (M.P.)
2. Smt Shanti Bai W/o Gopal Mawasi, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Matakola Dhana (Mujawarmal)
Tehsil Umreth District Chhindwara (Madhya
Pradesh)
3. Hari Prasad Alias Ghudu Sahu S/o Not Mention,
Aged About 41 Years, R/o Pench East Dighawani
Tehsil Parasia District Chhindwara (Madhya
Pradesh)
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department
(Pwd) No 1 District Chhindwara (Madhya
Pradesh)
M/S National Construction Company Chandmeta,
5. Teh. Parasia District Chhindwara (Madhya
Pradesh)
.....Respondents
(None Appeared)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
2
ORDER
This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 578
days in filing the appeal in question. The present appeal has been filed
challenging the award dated 11.01.2022 passed by learned Commissioner
Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Chhindwara. The matter got
delayed and could not be filed within the period of limitation as the appellant
came to know about the said order vide letter dated 13.12.2022, however, he
filed this appeal on 17.12.2023 with delay of 578 days vide I.A.No.26/2024.
The delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and rather bona fide one.
(2) The brief facts of this case are that the present appeal filed by the
appellant against the award passed by the Labour Court, Chhindwara dated
11.01.2022 with delay of 578 days filed I.A. No.26/2024 for condonation of
delay.
(3) Counsel for the appellant has stated that the claimants/respondent no.1
and 2 filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner, Labour Court
claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased
(Sangita Bai) during the course of employment and the learned Labour Court
awarded Rs.4,66,881/- in favour of respondent no.1 and 2. Against the award
passed by the Labour Court, the appellant filed this appeal with delay of 578
days. It is further stated that he could not file the appeal in time as the
appellant came to know about the order vide letter dated 13.12.2022, the
appellant is nothing to do with the M/s National Constructions Company i.e.
respondent no.5 herein. Further contended that appellant is not the Director
of the respondent no.5-Company and there was no evidence produced by any
of the parties that the appellant is in ownership of the said company. The
appellant is not the employer of the deceased, therefore, the award passed by
the Labour Commissioner against the appellant and other respondents is not
in accordance with law as there was no notice or prior knowledge of the
respondent, therefore, he filed this appeal seeking to condone the delay of
578 days and admit the appeal.
(4) This Court has considered the submissions made. Normally a very
lenient view is being taken in the matters of this nature, particularly, where
the appeals filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Labour
Court but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that sufficient cause
should be shown and a lenient view may be taken so as to advance the
substantial justice.
(5). It is stated by the learned counsel that the appellant came to know
about the order vide letter dated 13.12.2022 and further stated that appellant
is not the employer of the deceased, except this two, there was nothing to say
anything about the causes delay. When the appellant got knowledge about
passing of the order vide letter dated 13.12.2022, what prevented him to file
an appeal immediately after got the knowledge and causes shown for delay is
not justified.
(6) In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, why the delay
has to be condoned mechanically merely because the appellant filed this
appeal after came to know about passing of the award way back in the year
2022, therefore, he could not file the appeal in time, is not at all proper
explanation.
(7) The law is well settled that longer the delay, the heavier is the burden
on the party to prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause from
approaching the Court earlier. Though, ordinarily, the Courts have to take a
liberal view while considering the applications for condonation of delay, the
party, who fails to give plausible or convincing explanation for condonation
of delay does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.
(8) A decision reported in Allala Bhagavanth Rao vs Garvandula
Vijayalaxmi and others1, wherein e the Court at paras-12 to 15 of the order
held as follows:.
12. The word 'sufficient cause' is not defined either in the
Limitation Act or in the C.P.C.; the reason appears to be
that there is no straightjacket formula to decide whether the
cause shown for condonation of delay is sufficient cause or
not. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case,
the Court can exercise discretion and decide the sufficient
cause. Sufficient cause shall be construed liberally without
adopting any pedantic approach. It cannot be stretched to
frustrate the very intention of Legislature in specifying the
period for filing appeal or petition etc.
13. In Lanka Venkateswarlu (Died) by L.Rs.v.State of A.P.,
(2011) 1 UPLJ 242 (SC), the apex Court heavily laid on the
Courts when to allow the petitions, though no sufficient
cause is made out, and ruled as follows:
"We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale,
which could have impelled the High Court to condone the
delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The
concepts such as "liberal approach", "justice oriented
approach", "substantial justice" cannot be employed to
jettison the substantial law of limitation, especially in cases
where the Court concludes that there is no justification for
the delay. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High
Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and
restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst
adjudicating any lis between the parties. We are rather
pained to notice that in this case, not being satisfied with
the use of mere intemperate language, the High Court
resorted to blatant sarcasms. The use of unduly strong
intemperate or extravagant language in a judgment has
been repeatedly disapproved by this Court in a number of
1 . 2016 4 ALT 43
cases. Whilst considering applications for condonation of
delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do
not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All
discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be
exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The
discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner
informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or
predilections cannot and should not form the basis of
exercising discretionary powers."
14. In fact, the petitioner did not make out any sufficient
cause except making a bald unsubstantiated allegation in
the affidavit If such lame excuses for condoning the delay
are accepted as sufficient causes, virtually denuding or
jettisoning the substantive law of limitation.
15. In view of the law declared by the apex Court basing
on the concept of real justice, substantial justice the Courts
cannot allow petitions under Section 5 of Limitation Act,
when no sufficient cause is made out. Therefore, basing on
lame excuse or unsubstantiated cause, it is difficult to
condone the delay, liberally construing the word sufficient
cause.
(9) In the above decision, it is laid down that the expression "sufficient
cause" is elastic term and each day's delay need not be explained in strict
sense. Also, it has been clearly held that the approach to be applied for
condonation of delay would depend upon the cause shown and only when
sufficient cause is shown, the relief sought can be granted. But in the instant
case the appellant having the knowledge about the passing the award by
Labour Court vide letter date 13.12.2022 but the present appeal is filed on
17.12.2023 with delay of 578 days prescribing the outer limit in the form of
limitation to approach the Court of law is to see that the parties to the
proceedings are not vexed with the litigation forever or for an inordinate
length of period, the party who succeeds in the Industrial Dispute will have
the legitimate expectations to enjoy the fruit of the award. When unsuccessful
party as per its whims and fancies challenged the award at a later point of
time, the winning party would again be dragged for further round of
litigation. This is not the legislative intent, no doubt, the expression i.e.
sufficient cause must receive a liberal constructions so as to advance
substantial justice. The delay in preferring the appeal would be condoned in
the interest of justice. However, such delay should only be condoned where
the Court finds that there is absence of negligence or inaction on the part of
the parties seeking the Court to condone the said delay.
(10) In the instant case having the knowledge about the award passed by
Commissioner vide letter dated 13.12.2022 but the appellant has not taken
any steps to file an appeal forthwith and the negligent attitude or casual
approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained. Public
interest and confidence upon the Courts is to be protected. Judicial verdict
has to attain finality, therefore, this Court does not find any such cause which
amounts to sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
(11) By following the above judgments read together, sufficient cause has
to show for filing this appeal with delay of 578 days. This Court does not find
any sufficient cause pleaded by the appellant for condoning the delay. Apart
from this, there is a long delay of 578 days beyond 90 days period provided
for filing an appeal under the Statute, there is no explanation contained in the
condonation of delay application beyond the usual file-pushing is not
sufficient, therefore, the appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable
and cogent reasons sufficient to condone the such huge delay.
(12). In such circumstances, obviously the discretion could not have been
exercised in favour of the appellant who has not approached this Court with
clean hand, therefore, the application filed by the appellant lacked bonafide.
(13). Having perusal of the above decisions cited (supra) this Court does not
find any sufficient cause pleaded by appellant for condoning the delay in
question, therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing
the appeal and dismissed I.A.No.26/2024 accordingly.
(14). In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, I find
no merit in this appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(15). Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA,J
rk.......
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 16th Of May, 2024
Misc. Appeal No. 22 Of 2024
BETWEEN:-
Mohd. Saleem S/o Mohd Azeem, Aged About 64
Years, R/o House No. 75, Village Dongar Parasiya
Chikhali Kala Chhindwara (MP)
.....Appellant
(By Ms. Tanishka Aymaan)
AND
1. Gopal Mawasi S/o Doma Mawasi, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Matakola Dhana (Mujawarmal) Teh
Umreth Distt. Chhindwara (M.P.)
2. Smt Shanti Bai W/o Gopal Mawasi, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Matakola Dhana (Mujawarmal)
Tehsil Umreth District Chhindwara (Madhya
Pradesh)
3. Hari Prasad Alias Ghudu Sahu S/o Not Mention,
Aged About 41 Years, R/o Pench East Dighawani
Tehsil Parasia District Chhindwara (Madhya
Pradesh)
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department
(Pwd) No 1 District Chhindwara (Madhya
Pradesh)
M/S National Construction Company Chandmeta,
5. Teh. Parasia District Chhindwara (Madhya
Pradesh)
.....Respondents
(None Appeared)
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the
Judgment ? Yes/No
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
rk
Date: 2024.05.21 13:19:19 +05'30'
