Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jia Lal And Others

Tashi Rabstan, J

Instant application has been filed by the applicant-insurance company seeking condonation of delay of 155 days in filing the accompanied appeal under section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act against the judgment/award dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner under Employees Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Kishtwar in File No. 13-I title “Jai Lal vs. Deputy Project Manager and others”.

Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel for the applicant-insurance company has vehemently argued that the delay in filing the appeal on the part of the applicant is neither intentional nor willful. It is contended that on 07.09.2015, learned counsel has rendered his legal opinion and conveyed the insurance company about passing of the award dated 06.05.2015, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-I with this application.

It is contended that the draft appeal along with instant application seeking condonation of delay has been drafted on 03.11.2015 and after having permission from the competent authority, it was signed on 04.11.2015 and handed over to the counsel. Thereafter, the application along with appeal was filed before this Court on 08.12.2015, i.e., after more than a month‟s time.

A perusal of the legal opinion dated 07.09.2015 of Mr. Vishal Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant reveals that the award has been passed as per the Workmen Compensation Act as also fit in view of the age of the applicant at the time of accident, his future prospects, earning and the persons dependent on him. However, despite the opinion of the counsel, the insurance company has filed the present application seeking delay to be condoned along with accompanied appeal.

Learned counsel for the applicant-insurance company in support of his arguments has relied upon three judicial pronouncements of Hon‟ble the Supreme reported as 1987 AIR 1353, Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, 2013 Supreme (SC) 868, Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others and [2022] SCCR 127, Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao Deshmukh vs. Raghunath Kisan Saindane. Learned counsel has also relied upon one judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported as 2015 Supreme (J&K) 15, Union of India and another vs. M/s Godrej Agrovet Limited.

Per contra, Ms. Monika Kohli, learned counsel appearing for claimant-respondent No.1 has resisted this application and has placed reliance in support of her arguments on two judgments Hon‟ble the Supreme Court, one in case title Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and others, Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 and another reported in 2009 (3) SCC 525, Commissioner Nagar Parishad Bhilwara vs. Labour Court Bhilwara & another. In addition, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has relied upon judgment dated 11.02.2020 delivered by High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMP No.7730 of 2017 (ASSR No.34779 of 2017), title S.R Vediappan vs. S.P Ramalingam and others.

In case Commissioner Nagar Parishad Bhilwara supra, it has been observed by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court that the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case and would have only seen whether sufficient cause had been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it. In case Majji Sannemma supra, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court while considering the various judgments observed that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts held those who are vigilant and „do not slumber over their rights‟.

The present case is not a case where the applicant-insurance company has not contested the matter before the Court of learned Commissioner Employees Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Kishtwar and even the award was also passed in presence of the counsel of the insurance company. The legal opinion dated 07.05.2015 of Mr. Vishal Parihar, learned counsel is clearly suggestive of the fact that there is no scope to challenge the award because the same has been passed in accordance with Workmen Compensation Act. Therefore, the applicant seems to be satisfied with the award however it seems that the moment when the execution petition was filed by the non-applicant, then only the applicant herein had decided to file the appeal along with condonation of delay application just to avoid the execution proceedings.

The judicial pronouncements referred to by learned counsel for the applicant-insurance company are distinguishable and the same are not applicable to the case in hand. The case reported as [2022] SCCR 127 pertains to a dispute between the private parties whereas in the case in hand, the applicant is a full-fledged company equipped with lot of manpower as well as it has no shortage of funds. Therefore, the judgment passed in Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao Deshmukh‟s case supra cannot be relied upon in the present case.

Hon‟ble the Supreme Court while dismissing SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).19846/2020 titled as Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors., on 04.02.2021 on account of delay observed as under:-

“We have repeatedly being counselling through our orders various Government departments, State Governments and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the legal department is concerned, more so as technology assists them. This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as we are of the view that these officers must be made accountable. It has not had any salutary effect and that the present matter should have been brought up, really takes the cake!

The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No. 22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]…………………….”.

Having regard to above referred judgments, it suggests that the applicant-insurance company has perceived delay as a non serious matter and its lackadaisical tendency is exhibited by its nonchalant manner in which the appellant has pursued the matter.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussions made hereinabove and the settled law position, I do not find any merit in the application seeking condonation of delay and accordingly, the same is dismissed. As a result thereof, the accompanied appeal is also rejected.