- (1.) This is an application filed by the applicants/respondents for extension of time to comply with the judgement dated July 6, 2015 passed in the appeal bearing MA No. 004 of 2015 (Shri Christopher Minj v. The Lieutenant Governor and others). The operative part of the above judgement is quoted below:--- "However, we feel that the letters of appointment of the appellant are material document and we cannot totally ignore the same. Hence, for the ends of justice, the respondents are permitted to adduce evidence before the Labour Court including the said letters of appointment. However, this will be subject to the respondents paying costs to the appellant assessed at Rs. 25000/-, If such costs are paid by the respondents within a fortnight from date, they will be entitled to approach the Labour Court for consideration of the matter afresh within three weeks from the date of payment of costs. In the event the Labour Court is so approached, it will answer the reference after considering the matter afresh including the evidence that the respondents may adduce. In doing so, the Labour Court will not be influenced by its earlier Award or by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court or the present judgement and order of this Court. In the event the respondents do not approach the Labour Court within the time stipulated above, the Award of the Labour Court passed on 11.09.2013 shall stand affirmed. MA No. 004 of 2015 is accordingly disposed of." For the purpose of ascertaining the scope of allowing the prayer made in this application following observations are relevant:--- "(i) There was a direction of payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of fortnight from the date of the above judgement. (ii) Payment of the above cost was condition precedent to entitle the respondents to approach the Labour Court for consideration of the matter afresh within three weeks from the date of payment of costs. Needless to point out that the respondents were entitled to approach the Labour Court within three weeks from the date of payment of costs which could not be extended after expiry of fortnight from the date of delivery of the above judgement. (iii) According to the above judgment, the Award of the Labour Court passed on September 11, 2013 in favour of the appellant stood affirmed consequent upon non-payment of the above cost within the period mentioned in the above judgement."
(2.) It is true that the, period of compliance of the judgment can be extended on the basis of an application filed after its disposal considering the facts and circumstances for delay in complying with the said judgement provided that such extension of time is otherwise permissible in view of the judgment which had been delivered. Otherwise it will be the province of an appeal or review as the case may be.
(3.) Taking into consideration the above observations, we are of the opinion that in terms of the above judgment, the Award of the Labour Court passed on September 11, 2013 stood affirmed on expiry of the period of payment of cost or before fling of this application. So, there is no scope of extension of time to make payment of the above costs to the appellant.;