Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The Employees State Insurance ... vs M/S.Kirthilakalidas Jewellers ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 846 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 846 Mad
Judgement Date : 11 January, 2021

Madras High Court
The Employees State Insurance ... vs M/S.Kirthilakalidas Jewellers ... on 11 January, 2021
                                                                            C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in
                                                                         C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 11.01.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                               C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018
                                                        in
                                             C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

                     The Employees State Insurance Corporation,
                     Sub-Regional Office, 1897, Trichy Main Road,
                     Ramanthapuram, Coimbatore.                                     .. Petitioner
                                                       Vs.

                     M/s.Kirthilakalidas Jewellers Private Limited,
                     601, Rajaveedhi, Coimbatore-641 001.
                     (Formerly-Kirthilalkalidas and Co., a Registered
                     Partnership Firm was substituted by Order passed
                     in I.A.No.1380/2012 dated 06.12.2012 and called as
                     M/s.KirtilalKalidas Jewellers Private Limited)     .. Respondent

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 82(4) of
                     ESI Act r/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 487
                     days in preferring the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, against the
                     order and judgment passed in EIOP No.36 of 2006 dated 23.06.2016 by
                     the Employees State Insurance Court(Principal Labour Court),
                     Coimbatore.


                                      For Petitioner   : Mr.S.P.Srinivasan
                                      For Respondent   : Mr.V.K.Kadhirvelu




                    1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                               C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in
                                                                            C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017



                                                      ORDER

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition on hand is filed under Section

82(4) of ESI Act r/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the

delay of 487 days in preferring the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal,

against the order and judgment passed in EIOP No.36 of 2006 dated

23.06.2016 by the Employees State Insurance Court(Principal Labour

Court), Coimbatore.

2. The Assistant Director, The Employees State Insurance

Corporation is the petitioner and the petition is filed to condone the delay

of 487 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. The only reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of this

miscellaneous petition is that there is an administrative delay. Mere

administrative delay is insufficient to condone the enormous delay of 487

days in filing the appeal. Except the above reason, no other reason has

been stated for condoning the delay of 487 days in filing the above

appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

4. This Court has to consider whether such a long administrative

delay can be condoned in a mechanical manner or not. Undoubtedly,

there is a possibility of some administrative delay in certain unavoidable

circumstances. However, such administrative delay, if exceeds and the

delay is enormous, then it cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner.

The Petitioner being a public authority, they are bound to be vigilant and

prompt in performing their duties and responsibilities. Small amount of

delay can be condoned by taking a lenient view. However, long delay

cannot be condoned in the absence of any valid and acceptable reasons.

5. In recent years, these public authorities are found to be

frequently negligent and committing dereliction of duty in respect of

dealing with such appeals and other cases. There is a general trend that

the public authorities are having lack of sincerity and committing

dereliction on duty. These negligence and dereliction of duty are serious

misconducts and therefore, the higher authorities are bound to ensure that

the officials are performing their duties and responsibilities with utmost

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

care and with devotion to duty. Any such lapse or dereliction of duty is to

be enquired into properly and all appropriate actions are to be initiated to

ensure initiations of appropriate disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the

authorities cannot approach the Court in a routine or mechanical manner

with a huge delay in filing an appeal. Every such delay is to be explained

in a proper manner and the Courts are also to ensure that unexplained

delay is not condoned in a routine manner.

6. Perusal of the affidavit shows that there is absolutely no

acceptable reason for the purpose of condoning the enormous delay of

487 days in filing the appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit must be

convincing, enabling this Court to consider the condonation of delay.

Huge delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Law of Limitation

is substantive. Condonation of delay is an exception. Only on genuine

reasons, delay can be condoned by exercising the power of discretion.

7. Mechanical way of condoning delay is undoubtedly

impermissible. The condonation of delay can never be a mechanical

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

affair and the High Court cannot condone the delay in a routine manner.

Courts are bound to ensure that the reasons for condoning such delays

are recorded, so as to set out a precedent and to avoid mechanical way of

condonation of delay. When the law provides limitation for preferring an

appeal and the proviso clause as contemplates the power of discretion to

the Court to condone the delay, then such discretionary powers are to be

exercised judiciously and by recording reasons. It is not as if, the High

Courts can condone the delay in a routine manner, so as to dilute the law

of limitation as contemplated under the Statutes. Thus, in all cases, where

there is an enormous delay in filing an appeal, the Courts are bound to

ascertain the reasons and its genuinity and the acceptability of such

reasons. Every litigant is expected to prefer an appeal within the period

of limitation stipulated in the statute. On account of certain unavoidable

reasons, if the appeal is filed with some delay, then the Courts are vested

with the discretionary power to condone such a delay. Rule is to file an

appeal in time and condonation is an exception, which is to be exercised

discreetly and by recording reasons. Recording of reasons are of

paramount importance in order to maintain consistency in the matter of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

condonation of delay.

8. Discretionary powers are expected to be exercised by the Courts

judiciously. Any reasonable delay or the reasons, which all are valid and

acceptable alone can form an opinion for exercising the power of

discretion in the matter of condonation of delay. Thus, uncondonable

delay cannot be condoned and what all are the condonable delay and the

reasons stated and its validity, which all are important, so as to exercise

the power of discretion. The very purpose and object of providing

discretionary powers to the Courts are to ensure that the justice is done in

an appropriate manner. Because of some genuine delay, the rights of the

litigants cannot be neutralized and they should not be deprived of remedy

from the Court of law. Therefore, the power of discretion, which is

provided with genuine intention, cannot be diluted nor be neutralized by

condoning the delay in a casual manner. Thus, while exercising the

power of discretion, Courts are expected to be cautious and the reasons

for condonation must be recorded and in the absence of recording any

reasons, the Courts are not considering the substantive law of limitation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

Therefore, the law must prevail in all circumstances and discretion must

be exercised discreetly and with caution.

9. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned. Law expects that

every such delay is to be explained. Unexplained delay cannot be

condoned. Such unexplained delay is to be construed as uncondonable.

Thus, delay under what circumstances, would be condonable is the

relevant point to be considered by the Courts, while condoning such

enormous delay.

10. Parties are expected to file their respective appeals within the

period of limitation stipulated in the statute. Undoubtedly, certain

unforeseen circumstances may be the reason for delay. However, such

unforeseen circumstances or reasons, which all are genuine, must be

clearly and truthfully explained in the affidavit filed in support of the

miscellaneous petition. In the present case, reading of the affidavit

reveals that there is no valid and acceptable reason for the purpose of

condoning the enormous delay of 487 days in filing an appeal. In the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

event of condoning such a long delay, undoubtedly, the same will set a

wrong precedent and every such delay is to be condoned in other

circumstances. Therefore, in the absence of any valid reasons, the Courts

would not condone such an enormous delay. Undoubtedly, meagre delay

can be condoned by taking a lenient view. Even to condone such a small

delay, Court has to find out, whether there is any sensible reason for such

delay. Therefore, the Courts have to adopt a liberal approach only in

small delays and certainly not in the cases of enormous delay. Thus, this

Court has no hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the reasons stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous petition are neither

candid nor convincing and therefore, the delay is to be construed as

uncondonable.

11. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court has no

hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the reasons stated by the

petitioner for condoning the long delay of 487 days are neither candid

nor convincing and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in

C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 stands dismissed and consequently,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017 is rejected at the SR Stage itself. No costs.

11.01.2021 ssb Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order

To

1.The Employees State Insurance Court, (Principal Labour Court), Coimbatore.

2.The Sub Assistant Registrar, A.E.Section, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

ssb

C.M.P.No.5937 of 2018 in C.M.A.SR.No.102111 of 2017

11.01.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter