EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE AND 2 ORS Vs. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT LTD AND ANR
LAWS(GAU)-2018-9-3
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on September 03,2018

Employees State Insurance Corporation Regional Office And 2 Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. K.K. Nandi, the learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. Satyen Sarma, the learned advocate for the respondents.
(2.) By this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the applicants i.e. the Employees' State Insurance Corpn. ('ESIC' for short) and its 2 (two) officials have prayed for condoning the delay of 101 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected appeal, which has been filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
(3.) The learned advocate for the applicants has referred to the statements made in this application and submits that the judgment in ESI Case No. 3/2014 was delivered by the Employees State Insurance Court (hereinafter referred to as the "learned ESI Court) on 07.10.2016. The certified copy of the impugned order was applied on 20.10.2016 and received by the conducting advocate on 26.10.2016. The same was forwarded by the conducting advocate to the applicants by letter dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure-1), which was received by the Regional Office of the applicants on 01.11.2016. The applicants decided to prefer an appeal and, as such, the applicant No.1 i.e. ESIC by letter dated 10.11.2016 (Annexure-2), send some relevant papers along with the judgment to their advocates in High Court. The advocates required some additional papers and documents for preparing and filing the appeal, for which request was made by letter dated 02.12.2016 (mentioned as Annexure-3). The additional documents were provided on 02.12.2016. However, the advocate for the applicants had gone to Kolkata from 23.12.2016 to 13.01.2017 for the treatment of his family member. The advocates sought for certain clarifications, and having received them, the learned advocates took a few days time for preparing and filing the connected appeal. The learned advocate for the applicants submits that in the said manner, there was an inadvertent delay of 101 days in filing the connected appeal. It was submitted that as the applicants are Govt. of India concern, they are required to follow some official procedures, which are time consuming. It is submitted that there was a very good case on merit and, as such, the delay was liable to be condoned as huge public money is involved in this case. In support of his contentions, the learned advocate for the applicants has placed reliance on the following cases, viz., (i) (2017) 12 SCC 840; (ii) 2007 (3) GLT 526.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.