BHARAT KUMAR SHARMA v. PRADESH MADHYA CORPORATION HABIBGANJ BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) ROAD MANAGING TRANSPORT DIRECTOR DEPOT MANAGER MPRTC, NEEMUCH

Judgment

#5. PRADESH MADHYA CORPORATION HABIBGANJ BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) ROAD MANAGING TRANSPORT DIRECTOR DEPOT MANAGER MPRTC, NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH) DIVISIONAL MANAGER CENTRAL FLYING SQUAD HEADQUARTER MPRTC THROUGH, BHOPAL HABIBGANJ BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) FINANCE ADVISOR AND CHIEF AUDIT OFFICER MPRTC, BHOPAL HABIBGANJ BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) DIVISIONAL MANAGER MPRTC, DIVISION (MADHYA PRADESH) UJJAIN (NONE PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS) .....RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 2 Reserved on : 23.09.2023 Pronounced on : 06.11.2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition having been heard and reserved for orders coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice S.A. DHARMADHIKARI pronounced the following ..................................................................................................................... Heard on the question of admission and Interim Relief. ORDER

#2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the Industrial Court, Indore in Case NO. CA/07/MPIR/23 praying for the following reliefs: "(A) The matter be remanded back to Ld Labour Court for proper hearing of the matter in the interest of justice and for the final adjudication of the matter. (B) The order dated 23.04.2011 be set aside. (C) Any other relief may be granted, as may be deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (D) Grant any other MISC or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar circumstances of the case."

#3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was working as Cashier in respondent department where he was handed over the chargsheet dated

08.11.1993 on the allegation of misappropriation of funds and thereafter his services were terminated on 02.04.1994. Petitioner has approached Labour 3 Court, Ujjain against his termination and departmental enquiry whereby by order dated 29.05.1997, the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner was declared to be illegal and matter was listed for respondents' evidence till

14.03.2001. On the said date, petitioner was informed by the Court that the record of the matter was sent to the District Court, Mandsaur and concerned Court will revert back once the record is back. Petitioner kept inquiring for many years from the Court as well as his counsel, but to no avail. On

02.03.2022, after a long period of time, petitioner made an application to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ujjain to call the record of the case. The Presiding Officer taking cognizance of the application filed by the petitioner had sent a letter dated 27.06.2022 to the District Judge, Mandsaur for sending back the record of Case No. 96/1994. In response to the said letter learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Mandsaur informed the Presiding Officer that the matter stood decided on 18.04.2004 and thereafter record of aforesaid case was sent back to the Labour Court on 09.04.2009. On receipt of the said information, petitioner again approached the Labour Court Ujjain where it came to his knowledge that his case was finally decided on 23.04.2011. Petitioner made an application to obtain certified copy of the said final order as well as proceedings of the case which were given to him in a very damaged condition with an endorsement that case being so old and stale, therefore, the copy of same is provided in damaged condition. After receipt of certified copy, the appellant approached the Industrial Court by filing an appeal alongwith application seeking condonation of delay. The Industrial Court while dismissing the application for condonation of delay has dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present miscellaneous petition is preferred. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not 4 been issued any notice by the Labour Court and, therefore, principles of natural justice is violated. No evidence was produced to prove the misconduct of the petitioner and on 16.12.2010, rights of respondents were closed. Despite of that, learned Labour Court has dismissed the matter. The Industrial Court on the basis of proceedings before the Labour Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

#5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

#6. The Industrial Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 12 years and 10 months as petitioner has not put forth any plausible reasons for the prolonged delay in filing the appeal.

#7. Admittedly, petitioner after sleeping over his rights for about 12 years and 10 months had approached the Industrial Court in appeal alongwith application for condonation of such a huge delay. However, the petitioner has not been able to explain the day-to-day delay for condoning the same. therefore, the Industrial Court has rightly dismissed the appeal as the same suffers from inordinate delay and laches. 8 . The short point which requires consideration is whether learned Industrial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed u/S 5 of the Limitation Act?

#9. Since sufficient cause has not been defined, the Court is left to exercise discretion to conclude whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. The only guiding principle to be seen is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence and had not been negligent and callous in approaching the Court. The entire gamut of the facts is to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual 5 perception.

#10. It is not in dispute that against the termination of services and departmental inquiry of petitioner, he approached the Labour Court, Ujjain whereby the deparmental inquiry conducted against him was declared to be illegal and the matter was listed for evidence. However, the record of the matter was sent to District Court, Mandsaur and once the record is back he will be informed. As per the ordersheets of the Labour Court, it is clear that after receipt of record, petitioner's Advocate had appeared on hearings and therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is not aware of the fact that record is received back from the District Court, Mandsaur. Thereafter, after elapse of 12 years, he suddenly woke up from slumber and made an application to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court to call for the record. Taking shelter of non- availability of record and damaged certified copy of the proceedings before the labour Court , he approached the Industrial Court by filing an appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay against the order passed by the Labour Court. Learned Industrial Tribunal has held that petitioner is unable to give proper explanation of delay of 12 years and 10 months in approaching the Tribunal for the reason that the 3rd District Judge, Mandsaur has allowed the suit filed by the respondents and passed a decree for recovery of amount of R s . 13,44,324.30/- misappropriated by the petitioner and for the alleged misappropriation of funds, a criminal case was also registered against him in which chargsheet has been filed and to avoid the decree of recovery and the rigours of criminal prosecution, he kept silent for 12 years and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. 6

#11. This Court is of the considered view that the explanation for delay must be so detailed as to let the Court or the authority concerned see the nature of the reason and the circumstances under which it arose. A person who seeks the indulgence of the Court under Section 5 of Limitation Act must act with utmost good faith and make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the petitioner to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an application. In the absence of sufficient cause, the Court has no power to extend the time.

#12. The petitioner has failed to discharge the onus to explain the delay and hence, the Industrial Court was justified in dismissing the appeal being barred by limitation and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the order so passed.

#13. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (HIRDESH) JUDGE SEHAR HASEEN 18:10:27 +05'30'