Challenging the order passed in W.C.I.A.No.1 of 2016 in unnumbered W.C. of 2016 on the file of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor, the management has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. The respondent filed the application in W.C.I.A.No.1 of 2016 in unnumbered W.C. of 2016, to condone the delay of 3290 days in filing the Workmen's Compensation case.
3. The brief case of the respondent-claimant is as follows:-
(i) The respondent was working under the petitioner-management since 1984. She was employed by the management for cleaning the utensils in the canteen. According to her, when she was cleaning the vessels on 22.12.2004, her index finger got injured and her finger was amputated. For the injuries sustained by her, she filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
(ii) According to the respondent-claimant, since she could not continue her employment, the management terminated her from the service in October 2007. Thereafter, since the management promised to compensate her for the permanent disability, she waited till 2010 and thereafter, sent a lawyer's notice on 04.05.2010. The management sent the reply on 21.05.2010. Since the management had refused to compensate her she has filed the claim petition claiming the compensation with a delay of 3290 days.
4. The brief case of the management-petitioner is as follows:-
The management disputed the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The management has also stated that the respondent did not get herself injured during the course of employment. Further, they have stated that even as per the respondent, she was working in the institute from 2004 to October 2007, which itself would establish that she was kept in good health. The respondent did not come for employment without giving any notice from October 2007. Even in the reply, they have disputed the injuries sustained by the respondent-claimant. The management did not agree to pay any compensation to the respondent. According to the management, since the case of the respondent is false, the management is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent-claimant.
5. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, taking a liberal view condoned the inordinate delay of 3290 days relying upon a judgment reported in AIR 1987 SC 500 (Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and another v. Katiji and others).
6. Heard Ms.Kala Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in support of his contentions relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) 2015(5) Scale 41 State of Tamil Nadu v. Anbai Kingston Phillips & others), wherein the Apex Court held as follows:-
"9. The appeal, as mentioned earlier, was filed within the stipulated period of limitation but could not be re-presented for a long time as the defects were not rectified. The question all the same is whether there was sufficient reason for the delay in doing so. The fact that delay is inordinate stretching over nearly 10 years, cannot be denied. At the same time, it is fairly well- settled that the State functions in an impersonal fashion and that the ordinary standards, applicable to a litigant pursuing his own case, do not at times apply stricto sensu to the action of inaction of the State. That apart the enquiry conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court has not in the instant case suggested any collusion at the level of the State Government. What appears to have actually happened is that the appeal papers were presented within the time but repeatedly represented without fully removing the defects, in which process there was considerable delay. This was mainly because the officers concerned do not appear to have acted diligently. There is no gainsaying that the two range officers who have been indicted in the enquiry report were themselves under the supervisory control of higher officers who ought to have looked into the matter and ensured that the papers were refiled in time. Suffice it to say, we are in the light of the enquiry report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance) inclined to condone the delay no matter inordinate in its length. We, however, do so subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) which amount shall be deposited in the Advocates' Welfare Fund, if there is any, failing which with the High Court Legal Services Committee.
(ii) 2015(1) Scale 474 State of Tamil Nadu v. Anbai Kingston Phillips & others), wherein the Apex Court held as follows:-
4. As held by this Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and others, the court must always take a justice-oriented approach while considering an application for condonation of delay. If the court is convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of the government officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger public interest, should take a lenient view in such situations, condone the delay, howsoever huge may be the delay, and have the matter decided on merits.
(iii) 1998 (7) SCC 123 (N.Balakrishnan v.
M.Krishnamurthy), wherein the Apex Court held as follows:- "9.It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whole untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first cut refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior cut would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court."
8. It is settled position that unless a party seeking for condonation of the delay giving sufficient cause for the delay, the same should not be condoned.
9. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if sufficient cause is shown by the party, the delay can be condoned howsoever huge may be the delay. Therefore, it is clear that if a party seeking for condonation of the delay gives sufficient cause, the delay can be condoned. In the absence of sufficient cause shown by the petitioner, the delay cannot be condoned.
10. In the judgment reported in 2015 (1) SCC 680 [H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Limtied and another] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless a party seeking for condonation of the delay gives sufficient reason for the delay, the delay should not be condoned.
11. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, if the averments stated in the petition are taken into consideration, it is clear that the respondent-claimant has not explained the reasons for the delay in an acceptable manner. She has simply stated that the accident had occurred in the year 2004 and in the month of October 2007, she was terminated from the service. However, the management has specifically stated that she left the management on her own without any prior notice. When she had worked from 2004 to October 2007 with the management, she cannot take a stand that due to the injuries sustained by her she was prevented from doing the work. Only in the year 2010, she sent a notice to the management claiming compensation. The management also sent their reply disputing the very factum of the accident. Only in December 2015, the respondent-claimant filed the Workmen's Compensation case with a delay of 3290 days. In spite of issuing notice in the year 2010, the respondent-claimant chose to file the Workmen's Compensation Case only in December 2015. In spite of any acceptable reason given by the respondent-claimant, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour took a very liberal view and condoned the delay.
12. As already stated, in the absence of sufficient reasons shown by the respondent-claimant, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour should not have condoned the delay of 3290 days. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in W.C.I.A.No.1 of 2016 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.03.2017 Index : Yes/No Rj To The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor M. DURAISWAMY,J., Rj Order in C.R.P.(PD)No.2688 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.13949 of 2016 27.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in