- (1.) I.A. No. 5437 of 2016 Heard Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, being I.A. No. 5437 of 2016, wherein prayer has been made to condone the delay of 38 days in filing the instant appeal.
(2.) Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 38 days in preferring the instant LPA. The delay is not intentional and there is no latches on part of the appellant. The order was passed on 27.1.2016 in WP(L) No. 5469/2014. Thereafter, the appellant contacted the office of the lawyer to obtain the certified copy of the said order. Thereafter, the lawyer applied for the certified copy and obtained the same and forwarded the same to the appellant-company. Thereafter the file was scrutinized by the concerned department of the appellant-company and some legal opinion was obtained from their lawyer and ultimately, the appellant-company took a decision to prefer an appeal for which, approval was required to be taken from the Director (Finance) of the Company. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Director (Finance), who also sought for certain documents and record and ultimately, he was pleased to grant approval for filing the instant appeal and thereafter, appellant-company contacted their panel lawyer and after discussing the matter, got the appeal drafted and the same was presented for filing on 21.4.16. Therefore, the delay of 38 days in filing the instant appeal has occurred, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment in the case of Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam (dead) by Legal Representatives reported in (2015) 3 SCC 569 , wherein there was a delay of 1373 days and the same was condoned. In view of the above decision, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to condone the delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
(3.) Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently objects the prayer made for condoning the delay of 38 days in preferring the instant appeal by filing a counter affidavit stating therein that this limitation petition is frivolous, misconceived and not maintainable. The appellant-company in order to frustrate the very object of Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has preferred the present LPA and he further submits that this LPA has been filed against the interim order dated 27.1.2016 in order to harass the workmen and, therefore, deliberate delay has been caused just to deprive the workmen to get the fruit of Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Amarnath Yadav reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422 , wherein, it has been held that the delay caused by moving the file from one department to another department is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. In the aforesaid judgment, the decision rendered in the case of Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 , has been relied, wherein, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has deprecated such practices on the part of the Government authority/Departments in the following words. 27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. ;