MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs ARUN KUMAR BHAURAO SINGH , VINOD GOPAL GOSAVI

BOTH these appeals were fixed for admission. BOTH the appeals are filed after the prescribed period of limitation. The point for consideration being common in both these appeals, they are disposed off by this common order.

IN appeal No. 304/91, the order of the District Forum, Akola is passed on 5.10.94. The appeal is presented on 4.12.91, obviously beyond the period of limitation. The reason stated in the application for condoning the delay is that the impugned order was received by the appellant on 18.10.91. We have seen the copy of the order received by the appellant. There is an endorsement by the Depot Manager, M.S.R.T.C. Mangnilpir but he has not made an endorsement of the date of which he received the copy. While explaining the delay it is stated that on account of the Diwali holidays, the Advocate received the papers on 19.11.91 and, therefore, the delay caused thereafter was tried to be explained before us by the learned Advocate. IN any case, we are not satisfied about the date of the receipt of the order by the M.S.R.T.C and the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation. In appeal No. 305/91, the order of the District Forum, Single is dated 8.9.91 and the appeal filed on 4.12.91. While explaining the delay, it is stated that the impugned order was received on 17.9.91. Nothing is placed on record to show that the impugned order was received on 17.9.91. Further reason is stated that the Legal Advisor of the appellant was busy with the Lok Adalat matters to be held at Allibag and, thereafter, there was Diwali holiday. The aforesaid reason does not appear to be satisfactory to condone the delay.

The appellant, M.S.R.T.C. is a huge organisation and we cannot imagine that it is short of hands in sending the relevant papers to the Legal Advisor in time. Moreover, in both the appeals, no contemporaneous record of having received the impugned order are placed before this Commission. There must be Inward Register maintained by the appellant in the respective Office to show the receipt of the orders. Nothing is placed on record to satisfy this Commission that both the orders in these two appeals were received on a particular date. We are, therefore, not satisfied for the cause of delay and, therefore, reject both the appeals. Appeal dismissed.