N.N. Mithal, J. - (1.) THIS F.A.F.O. has been filed by Employees State Insurance Corporation against an order passed by the City Magistrate exercising powers under Section 25 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, with a delay of 75 days. An application supported by an affidavit for condoning the delay has also been filed trying to explain the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. On 18 -1 -83 when the appeal came up before a learned single Judge of this Court he did not feel satisfied with the explanation for the delay given in the affidavit. Time was, therefore, granted to the Appellant to file a supplementary affidavit to explain the delay properly. A supplementary affidavit was consequently filed on 10 -5 -83.
(2.) HAVING heard Sri B.N. Asthana, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation I do not feel satisfied that the corporation had been acting in a reasonably diligent manner in the prosecution of this case and there is no justifiable ground made out in the two affidavits so as to persuade the Court to condone the delay. According to the affidavit one Sri P.C. Sharma, an Inspector of the Employees State Insurance Corporation at Agra was looking after the case in which arguments were closed on 14 -7 -82. The Court had fixed 28 -7 -82 for delivery of its judgment but as the Magistrate was not available that day no judgment was delivered and he was informed by the Reader of the Court that the Corporation will be informed as and when judgment is delivered. Acting on this assurance, no effort was made thereafter to enquire if any order has been passed in the proceedings. It is alleged that sometime in early October, 1982 a rumour was heard that an order against the Corporation has been passed. This prompted the said Inspector to proceed to Mathura on 6 -10 -82 where he came to know that the order had been pronounced on 27 -8 -82. Without loss of further time he applied for the certified copy on the same day which was received on 13th October 82. This copy was sent to the Regional Director, legal branch of the corporation at Kanpur along with a covering letter for taking further action. It is said that this letter was received in the regional office only on 4 -11 -82 i.e. almost after 20 days. The regional office sent the papers, to its head -quarter in New Delhi for sanction to file an appeal on 11 -11 -1982 and its decision was communicated by a letter dated 4 -12 -82 received by the regional office on 12 -12 -82. It appears that instead of taking any prompt action a letter dated 13 -12 -82 was sent to the Inspector to explain why copy of the judgment was received after a long delay. When his explanation was received file and copy of the judgment were sent to the office of the Corporation at Allahabad on 4 -1 -83 where it was received on 14 -1 -83. Thereafter an appeal was filed on 17th January, 1983.
(3.) IN the supplementary affidavit the only relevant thing stated is that the sanction from the head office of the corporation to file the appeal was obtained on or about 3 -1 -83 and papers were sent to Allahabad through registered post in the hope that in the normal course delivery would be made within two days and for this reason document was not sent through special messenger;