Municipal Council, Bilaspur v. Smt. Sushma Rani & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 18 Jul 2011
- Bench
- GENERAL, SURINDER SINGH
Outcome
Allowed
writ petition is allowed and the impugned order
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. July 18, 2011. (rc) (Surinder Singh), Judge.
Judgment
Smt. Sushma Rani and others .(cid:133)Respondents. Coram Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate. For respondents No.2 and 3: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate _________________________________________________________ General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Labour Commissioner, i.e., appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 beyond the period of limitation challenging the order of the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council dated 27.11.2004 (Annexure P-4) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
As per provisions of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the petitioner was required to file an appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of such order, which could further be 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - extended for a period of 60 days but the appellate authority has no power to entertain and decide the appeal after a period of 120 days, therefore, the prayer for condoning the delay was declined.
No further second appeal or revision has been provided against the order of the appellate authority, as such the present writ petition has been preferred on the ground that the petitioner had already engaged an Advocate to assail the order of the Executive Officer and according to the counsel the revision was drafted and filed before the appropriate forum. When the petitioner requested for the stay order, the learned Advocate informed that the revision petition had not been taken up for hearing as yet. Despite repeated communications made on 19.3.2005 (Annexure A- 6), 4.10.2007 (Annexure A-7) and 1.5.2008 (Annexure A-9, ultimately the petitioner-Council engaged another Advocate and it was then it came to their notice that no such revision petition filed. The aforesaid facts have been substantiated by filing an affidavit of Shri Sanjay Kumar, Executive Officer of the Municipal Council. These averments have not been rebutted by the respondents. - 3 -
Operative part
It is a settled law that for inaction of the counsel the party shall not suffer. Therefore, the unrebutted averments made the petition constitute (cid:145)sufficient cause(cid:146) to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority. As such, the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., Labour Commissioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act is hereby condoned in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P-6) is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal before the appellate authority shall be taken on record. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 8th August, 2011 with a copy of this order and the appellate authority shall decide maintainability of the appeal on its own merit in view of the mandate of relevant provisions of law, as if filed within limitation.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. July 18, 2011. (rc) (Surinder Singh), Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is allowed and the impugned order
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — s. 7; Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5; Payment of Gratuity Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 18 Jul 2011. The bench was GENERAL, SURINDER SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.