D.F.O. vs Surendra Parida
2021 Latest Caselaw 11174 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          F.A.O. No.857 of 2019

        D.F.O., Keonjhar Kendu Leaves           ....               Appellant
        Division
                                                     Mr.G.N. Raut, ASC

                                     -versus-

        Surendra Parida                         ....          Respondent


                  CORAM:
                  MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
                              ORDER

01.11.2021 Order No. I.A. No.1133 of 2019

02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar Kendu Leaves Division, as the Appellant, has filed this Appeal in challenging the award/judgment dated 27.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner for Emploees Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cuttack-II, Dhenkanal in E.C. Case No.16/2016 (W.C. Case No.27/2007.

By the said award/judgment, the father of the deceased- employee, namely, Nilamani has been awarded with compensation of Rs.2,12,231/- with further direction that the same be paid within thirty (30) days failing which simple interest @ 121 per month would be run.

3. The impugned award/judgment having been passed on 27.11.2017, this Memorandum of Appeal has been presented

// 2 //

before this Court on 24.10.2019. Thus there being delay of 636 days (1 year 9 months 3 days), an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed.

4. Mr.Raut, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned award/judgment being passed on 27.11.2017, the Appellant had requested the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Kendu Leaves, Odisha vide letter dated 10.01.2018 to take appropriate Government order as to the further course of action in the matter. He further submits that in the process of obtaining the final order of the Government, the delay has been caused because of the tardy progress of the file. He submits that here the very factum as to the death of the employee having taken place in course of his discharge of duty is under challenge and the Commissioner having not touched upon the evidence on record and considered those in their proper perspective, has passed the impugned award/judgment saddling the liability of payment of assessed compensation upon the Appellant. It is his submission that when, it appears that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate; keeping in view the fact that this amount of compensation has to be paid from State exchequer, the application for condonation of delay need be entertained.

5. Keeping in view the submissions made, the averments taken in the application being perused; it is seen that the explanation as to the existence of sufficient cause in preventing the Appellant from filing of the Appeal in time has been offered at paragraphs 5 and 6of the application.

// 3 //

It is stated that though the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Kendu Leaves, Odisha was moved way back on 10.01.2018 and he, in turn, had placed the matter before Government on 25.01.2018 for a decision as to the next course of action, the final order has been received by the Appellant in the mid of September, 2019. The averments do not show as to for what reason it was got so delayed at the Government level. This Court is conscious of the position that although a liberal approach is called upon in the matter of condonation of delay yet when the delay is for quite a considerable period, the Court would seek that plausible explanations must come forward in order to see that by condoning such long delay, no such grave injustice is caused to the adversary.

The facts and circumstances of the case being viewed, it is seen that the Respondent has been running in the litigation from the year 2007 seeking compensation for the death of his son in the year 2005 and after the award/judgment came to be passed way back on 27.11.2017, this Appeal has been presented after the delay of 636 days (1 year 9 months 3 days). The explanations, in my considered viewed are per se not acceptable to say that the Appellant was not prevented by sufficient causes for all these period in not filing the Appeal in time.

6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this application for condonation of delay.

7. The I.A. is accordingly dismissed.

(D. Dash) Judge

// 4 //

Order F.A.O. No.857 of 2019 & I.A. No.1134 of 2019 No.

03. 1. In view of the order passed today I.A. No.1133 of 2018, the FAO stands dismissed.

(D. Dash) Judge Basu