^.n/ ® IN THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR GHHATTISGARH ^y Appellants: ;(Non applicant Nos. 1,4&5) Respondents: Gl'aimants y M. A. No/2/St^ of200^ ^. ^- §ln D Rl?1 ^LH Respondents: (Non-applicants -No.2&3.) ,»'" State of Chhattisgarh, through Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Kanker Division, Kanker (CG) B. R. Pal, Sub Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, through Executive Engineer, R.E.S Kanker District Kanker (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector,Kanker, (CG) Versus 1, Heeraram Bhaskai-.S/o Rambharos about 40 years, by Caste 'Gond', 2, Chaiti Bai Bhaskar, W/o Heeraram Bhaskar, aged about 35 years, Both residentpfvillage Saranda, Post Sarona, Tahsil Narharpur, Police Station, Kanker, District Kanker (CG) ^ Alok Mathur, Contractor, Chikhla Kasa, Millpara, Dalli Rajhara,CG Vishnu Deo Singh, Main Road, Dalli Rajhara, Bhawchand Lunia, Gupta, Chowk, Dalli Rajhara (CG) APPEAL UNDER_SECTIQN_JO OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923. (CLAIMED VALUED AT RS. 2,43,0l5/-) XI-HC-78 'ssf ^fwM^, siTfly'is, !«idiyij,<. ^I+IMI sb+llch A Cr; ^&- ^^o T, ^R; 200'? 3li^l 4ach(i{<:<i^«<'^ST) r\^A -i\°? sn^TcfiT^icb (RT3[R?T*11°h ?^iRK(rf%tT3:n^r 22.02.2007 Nb Shri G. D. Vaswani, counsell Heard on M.C.P. No. 327/2t days in filing this appeal against the Conimissioner for WorkmeA Jagdalpur in C.O.C.Noffi/76/W.C.l|', of Rs. 2,43,019 to respondents during the course of employinent) aged about 18 years engaged in ^ stop dam under construction in| coUapsed. Learned counsel for the not questioning its liability to pay| questioning only the In the appUcation for grounds have been mentioned. 1. quantuin of c<jinpensation "That, the appeUant^ take sanction for by any Court of law. due to so many obtainmg sanction foi| It is further submitl involved in the inattfe HonT)le Coi.u't shoulijl condoning the delay. That, delay in fi]in| bonafide and not appeUants pray that »tii<il<n<i1-f *ii4iiTfffs^'<Ri+<ii< ^)3lRtEr3TT^T |for the appeUants. [)07 for condonation of delay of 441 [.he order dated 22.9 2005 passed by ^i's Compensation (Labour Court) fatal/1/2004 awarding compensation >. 1 & 2 /claimants for the death, [ of one labourer Balram Bhaskar, ^.gging work on 14.4.2004 when the Khallari canal Saranda suddenly apj|)eUants submitted that the State is compeasation in this appea}, but is cojidonation of delay, the foUowing being the State have to chaplenging any order passed |The delay so occurred was [procedures involved for filing- of appeal. |;ed that public money is br and for this reason the take a lenient view for |g the instant appeal is lleUberate, therefore the |the HonTsle Court may be. ^- XI-HC-78 *11*1MI sb*1ich ^Sf "i<l'MI'1<1, 8iTn<H'IS, fsldiyy k\fiCOr^o. 1 t.o Qi ^T 200^) Sll^l Mach ('i?^6!^) sn^r^f^TR? aw 3ii^i*4i+ STciTWHf^g'-w^r —•5.- Et)i<<fn<fl-i iiHtiT^Ts^ <Ri<^i< ^sri^R'aii^r pleased to condoi^ instant appeal in tUe e the delay in fiting the interest ofjusdce. The af&davit filed in su^ specificaUy inention any of the mentions that tlie aforesaid gro) of information received frora th^ true. Learned Governnaent Naealand Vs. LJBPJ Ao & Otherk jport of the application ako does not grounds mentioned above but simply linds are true and correct on the basis t record of the case and believed to be particular paragraph 15 wluch u Ai^vocate placed reliance on State of L(2008) 3 Supreme Court. Casfs 752 in reproduced below:- kee|pin tle felatiu'e. ilot "It is axiomatic that officers/agencies prover1( encumbered process of] table to table and considerable time causib; otherwise — is a routin^. procedural red tape in decision is a cominon ainount of latitude is appeals brought by th^ default no person is what in the ultimate interest. The expre| should, therefore, be coit in a justice oriented a^ technical detection o| exDlainine every day s ( are peculiar to and| functioning of the gover|i be cognizant to anc( pragmatic approach in The dourt shoidd decidle Idecisions are taken by [|iiaUy at a slow pace and pushing the files from ig it on the table for ig delay - intentional or Considerable delay of process of their inaking Therefore, certain impernussible. If the State are lost for such Individually affected but ^nalysis suffers, is public bsion "sufficient cause tsidered with pragmatism tiproach rather than the sufficient cause for llelav. The factors which characteristic of the bmental conditions would requires adoption of justice onented process. the niatters on nierits XI-HC-78 *11*1WI Sb+lich 3^ "i<l<ll'?1<!<, »T(1tf'l6,(»fl1iy^< ^ .«.*.<0.-;.."?^ ,,^ Sii^i 4aqi (*i,c<i^'siS,iT) sn^TqiTR^ich cRT 311^1 shllct) STtiTWtrfStTsn^r »bNtfl<fl-1 1|t«?]l'iffel<'l{KlW( -~\-^ ^ sf^fsn^! unless the case is hope] separate standards to d< the State vis-a-vis priva) prove strict standards Governinent at constitute leg-al cells whether any leg-al decision by the courts adjustment and should| take a derision or give a|| settlement. In the even) needed prompt action s[ officer responsible to be made personatly EquaUy, the State can) footing as an individua[l. always be quick in taku^s would piirsue the reme4y appUcation since he is while the State is working through its app|ropriat< pri(icipli aili offiders tessly without inerit. No ttermine the cause laid by te Utigant could be laid to bf sufficient cause. The |ropriate level should to examine the cases (iciples are involved for |ir whether cases require authorize the officers to jppropriate permission for of decision to ffle appeal, |hould be pursued by the appeal and he should (onsible for lapses, if any. (lot be put on the same The individual would b the decision whether he by way of an appeal or |a person legaUy injured iinpersonal machinery or servaats. ifflelthe res^onsibl In the case law cited by application for grant of leave to| 378 (.3) Cr.P.C 1973 by the accoinpanied by an appUcation tbat case, it was shown in de| Departinent tffl the appeal was to when the copy of the order did the Departinent put up action before the concerned aU authority forward the ffle for c^ liow the ffle was found missing ^he learned Governnient Advocate, an appeal was inade in terms of Section |State of NagaJand which was duly l|or condonation of delay of 57 days. In iaQ. as to how the ffle inoved in the pled. In other words, it was shown as \+as received by the Department, when w\th relevant documents for necessary tthority and when did the concerned t>nsideration to another authority and |and could not be traced inspite ofbest XI-HC-78 3ST ^INIdi), (i>xnti'l(i, Rl^l+l^ t~AA rc-) 1^0- 2-3.0^ +<l«^TTsb*<|tti Wi[ 200^ Sll^fl 4a<*i (l{d}^s|(^8T) 3TI^TWR.fi°b cTSTT3TT^Tsh^|ch 5^ITW:;Frf?tT3n^T ^rafer?N wRTf if fs^ rfWrc A 'arf^irsn^T efforts. It was also shown that i|ltunately when orders were passed for reconstructing the ffle, the missi|ng file suddenly appeared in the office of authority concerned and thei|eafter acting bonafide the appeal was filed though after a delay of 57 d|ays. It is not the law that in efrery case wliere tliere is delay in fHing of appeal by the State, it shou^d be condoned autoinatically without considering whetlier there is sufGcient cause for the delay. The State Eke any other Utigant is under for the delay by sliowing when obtained and how and when tlj |an obUgation to show suf&cient cause the copy of the impugned ordei was e file inoved in its legal Departments and at what stages. It is oi|ily then that it could be taken into consideration that Government proverbially at a slow pace en| decisions which are taken by officers 3unibering the process of pushing tlie files froin table to table and k^eping it on the table for considerable time causing delay, intention^l or otherwise is a routine. If the appeUant produces material bejfore the Court which shows as to how the files moved in its legal Deps|rtinent and explains the cause of delay, then certain amount of ladtud^ is not unpermissible in favour of the State as an appeUant. To reite| the State and procedural delay functioning, would not by itj ^ate tlie mere fact tliat the appeUant is (s tlie rule in government departinental ;elf constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in every c4se. In the present case, it ^s seen that after the impugned order dated 22.9.2005 was passed placed on record to show as by the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Lalboiir Couj't) Jagdalpiir, no material is to wlien the copy of the award was. l' XI-HC-78 3I1^T?iTR-fi+ traT3tR?Tsb>11«ti Priya +11+1^1 Sti*f|ch 3^ ^WM^, wS\Wie,, (aldKHy . ^\f\-CO »^-& - 2-^o ^R; 200^ 311^1 4ac»>(4?li^sf<!iT) ?t<ITW BfStT 3-n^T mo+ed if&c niattier obtained and liow the ffles State. Even in the applicadfin material whatsoever has beeit certain ainount of latitude in also pertinent to note that the support of the application for on tUs point. The huge dela^f details whatsoever of the does not deserve to be condonedl In this view of the case law cited by the distinguishable and do not whatsoever has been made condonation of the inordinate In this view of the matteit any satisfactory explanation foj delay of 441 days, the appeal is delay of 441 days in preferrinfe condoned. Accordingly, M.C.P. No. dismissed and as a result barredby lunitation. before the legal Department of the filed for condonation of delay, no placed before tllis Court to permit lavour of the State Government. It is if&davit of the concerned of&cer ffled in cc|ndonation of delay is also whoUy sUent of 441 days without tliere being any mov^ment of fUes m the legal department learnW aijply o|ut d^lay °bi<ijci'in-i HiticiTifteI^'<Ri«i< ^ ^ ^stf^TTsn^T attjer, the facts and circumstances of the Governinent Advocate are dearly to the present case. No ground by the State of Chliattisgarh for of441 days in filing this appeal. (, since the applieation does not disclose condonation of the huge unexplained jhopelessly barred by liinitation and the rinfe this appeal, does not deserve to be 327/2007 for condonation of delay is th^reof this appeal is also dismissed as Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.