(^ / IN THE mpH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Appellants: (Non applicant Nos. 1,4&5) Respondents: .Claimants (K^^ -r->^- . Respondents: (Non-applicants No.2&3.) w M.i"No.^SLof200fr ej!2gli \Sftfi 'BaIKi L 7./ 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 Shakuntala Jain, Wd/o late Ram about 28 years, by Caste 'Kalar', Ku. Dileshwari Jain, S/o late Ram, aged about 14 years, by Caste 'Kalar', Ku. Bhagrati Jain, S/o late Ram, aged about 5 years, by caste 'Kalar' Siyaram Jain, aged about 50 years, by caste 'Kalar Dayawati Jain, aged about 45 years, d-a, ^t.-T, o^<_w«v»^,i-ftmru^ 1?-1 Si\<»,kilw4tJ^ ~ All resident of village Pusawand, ;rc*~~ Post Pushwada, Tahsil Narharpur, Police Station, Kanker, Disfa-ict 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 SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923. ^M lr~i XI-HC-78 *<1*IMI Sh<4ich 3^T '*! 1.41cl<4, ®Tflyi|(S,(sl^l^y . M^Cf ^W&' >2^1 ^^ 200^ .^-^ -v^\ 3ll^l ^iach (yit^qqiT) 3n^Tq>TR^i+ (T8fT 311^1 sbt| STHTWHfscrsn^r 22.02.2007 counstt for Workinlens Shri G. D. Vaswani, Heard on M.C.P. No. 329( days in filing tlus appeal agains^ the Conunissioner for Jagdalpur in C.O.C.No/B/74W.C) of Rs. 2,16,482 to respondents during the course of employmen^ years engaged in digging work o) construction in KhaUari canal Learned counsel for the not questioning its liabUity to p4 questioning only the quantum of| In the application for grounds have been inentioned. 1. Salranda That, the appeUa4t: take sanction for by any Couit of law). due to so many) obtaining sanction 2. It is further submlitted involved in the ma) Hon'ble Court shoitld condoning the delayl. 3. That, delay in filfn bonafide and notl appeUants pray tha|t <t)i<(?ci41-i i4iN<-iTfftec^l'<Ri+4i< ^isri^R'a-n^r the appeUants. f2007 for condonation of delay of 441 t the order dated 22.9 2005 passed by Gompensation (Labour Coiirt) I.Fatal/1/2004 awardmg coinpensation No. 1 to 5/claimants for the death, I;, of one labourer Ram, aged about 30 ti 14.4.2004 when the stop dain under suddenly coUapsed. abpeUants submitted that the State is >4y compensation in this appeal, but is ;oinpensation. (jondonation of delay, the foUowing a4ts being the State have to cltaUenging any order passed The delay so occurred was procedures involved for filing of appeal. ftr that pub]ic money is ter and for this reason the take a lenient view for ig the instant appeal is deUberate, therefore the the HonTile Court inay bp issa XI-HC-78 3:5? "41<l||i1'M, «'TfluJI(o, IstdKHy c^ ^-^ .^..CF.lV^P..^1, ^l^dl sh^llcb ••••••'-•"•'•-••''••"•••••• ^j- 200T Sfi^i ^atti ('i?^^) 3TI^T.?iTl^Tra; crar 311^1 **<i+ s^nwCTfNsn^T pleased to condone instant appeal in the i |the delay in filing the i|nterest ofjustice". The affidavit ffled in suppcjrt Ispeci&caBy mention any of the gr^unds niendons that the aforesaid grounfls lof inforniation received from the rifccord Itrue. Learned Government Advijcate \Naealand Vs. LwokAo & Otbers (^!( "It is axioniatic that d^ officers/agencies proverbiapy at a slow pace and encumbered process of p table to table and keepii^g it on the table for considerable time causing otherwise - is a routine. procedural red tape in the ^irocess of their making derision is a common feat<ire. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not tii<iTci'n-i tiiticiT^'teiit'<fs]t<i< ^arf^ITSn^T of the appUcation also does not mentioned above but siinply are true and correct on the basis of the case and beUeved to be placed reUance on State of ($005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 752 in Ipardcular paragraph 15 wMch is r^producedbelow:- cisions are taken by iishing the ffles from delay - intentional or Considerable delay of impermissible. If the appeals brought by the ^tate are lost for such default no person is ind|ividually affected but what in the ultiinate an4lysis suffers, is pubUc interest. The expressi^n "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be consi(|lered with pragmatism in a justice oriented app^oach rather than the technical detection of Isufficient cause for explaining every day"s del|ay. The factors which are peculiar to and fharacteristic of the functioning of the governn^ental conditions would be cognizant to and ^equires adoption of praginatic approach in jii|stice oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits ffll' XI-HC-78 sn^T^rR-iitti (TOT 311^1 Sht< *TT<-lcTT aifll'^ 3^? •<<l<<lr1-4, 8iT(1y'l(», (slcll'Hy ^-^Ht(s-.).^.o.:.2:'h\.ft^ 200 311^1 4aq> ('i'^I^I^) S^tITWfffgtTSn^T hopele|ssly unless the case is separate standards to the State vis-a-vis privat^ prove strict standards o^ Government at constitute legal ceUs whether any legal prin( decision by the courts o^ adjustment and should 4 take a decision or give settlement. In the event needed prompt acdon ofBcer responsible to ffle be made personally Equally, the State footing as an individual.) always be quick in takingl would pursue the remed^ applicadon since he is 4 while the State is anl workmg through its apprjipnate Ifhe respc|nsibl canntit detdfl In the case law cited by application for grant of leave to 378 (3) Cr.P.C 1973 by the accompanied by an application fo( that case, it was shown in Department tiU the appeal was to when the copy of the order w4' did the Department put up wit|i action before the concerned authoritv forward the file for how the file was found missing chl<4fcl41-f til1ctTfffsci)'<Rl<^K .!,'" ^;3rf^iT3n^T without merit. No det|ermine the cause laid by litigant could be laid to siif&cient cause. The level should to examine the cases ;iples are involved for whether cases require diuthorize the oflicers to aplpropriate permission for ()f decision to file appeal, sh|ould be pursued by the appeal and he should respc|nsible for lapses, if any. be put on the same The individual would the decision whether he by way of an appeal or person leg-aUy injured iinpersonal machinery of&cetrs or servants. tlte Sltate learned Government Advocate, an ^ppeal was made in terrus of Section of Nagaland which was duly condonation of delay of 57 days. In as to how the file moved in the filled. In other words, it was shown as [s received by the Department, when relevant documents for necessary autlhority and when did the concerned co^isideration to another authority and could not be traced inspite ofbes.t^ fitled. abd XI-HC-78 3:5T •^llilldl, B'Tfl'y'iG, Rlcll+iy t-\,ft Cn'<lo- 2xi *<1*1(11 9lHTc(i ?TT 200^ 311^114^* (>ic<l3's<^iT) Sd^TWf^TW ciqT3IT^rsb1iqi ??tITW:tlf?(T3n^T +l'4td-!fl-< lTTl:I?ifi|'Ts'<rl <Rl<^K U ^ ^ sfrf^rq'sn^T lefforts. It was also shown that "econstructing the ffle, the missing] |of authority concerned and thereafi |filed though after a delay of 57 day^ It is not the law that in eveih |of appeal by the State, it should |considering whether there is sufficj |ike any other litigant is under an| for the delay by showing when tVf bbtained and how and when the ^nd at what stages. It is only :onsideration that Government det {iroverbially at a slow pace encun( ples froin table to table and keepi f,iine causing delay, intentional o| ^ippeUant produces inaterial before| |;he ffles moved in its legal Departm|i then certain amount of latitude is ptate as an appeUant. To reiterate| the State and procedural delay is functioning, would not by itself ij'ondonation of delay in every case. In the present case, it is i^ated 22.9.2005 was passed by ^Vorkmen's Conipensation (Labour| ]|)laced on record to show as to i>lti|mately tile when orders were passed for file suddenly appeared in the office 'ter acting bonafide the appeal was ^ case where there is delay in fiUng be condoned automatically without ^ent cause for the delay. The State obligation to show suf&rient cause copy of the impugned order was moved in its legal Departments Ithen that it could be taken into :isions which are taken by of&cers (hering the process of pushing the |ng it on the table for considerable |r otherwise is a routine. If the the Gourt which shows as to how jent and explains the cause ofdelay, |not impermissible in favour of the the mere fact that the appeUant is rule in government departmental lconstitute a sufficient cause for tUe s^en that after the impugned order the Court of Coinmissioner for Court) Jagdalpur, no material is 4rhen the copy of the award was ir~ XI-HC-78 *11*1MI Stl*1|ct) 3^ -<<l'i)lc1i|, ®Tfiy'l6,[s|f]l«y . -M^ l/C) MO - 2-3-'' ^PT 200^1 ^^ 3ii^<?i Maqi (yit'lci^'iT) an^rqiTR^jcj) tIW 311^1 *liti Priya \v\ ?^ITW:Hf?(T3I1^T obtained and how the files movedl State. Even in the application niaterial whatsoever has been certain amount of latitude in also pertinent to note that the support of tlie appUcation for on tMs point. The huge delay o^ details whatsoever of the movemt does not deserve to be condoned. In this view of the naatter,| case law cited by the learned distinguishable and do not applj whatsoever has been made out condonadon of the uiordmate delaj In this view of the matter, any satisfactory explanation for delay of 441 days, the appealis delay of 441 days ui preferring condoned. Afx;ordingly, M.C.P. No. 3$ dismissed and as a result barred by liinitation. tlierebf _-s •;ni'i(l<']<)1-t H]ti<iT?''fstit'<Ri«i< ^stRriTsn^r before the legal Department of the Ifiled for condonation of delay, no F|laced before this Court to permit favfciu- of the State Government. It is affitiavit of the concerned of&cer filed in cond|onation of delay is abo whoUy silent 441 days without there being any i^nt of ffles in the legal department the facts and circumstances of the Government Advocate are clearly to the present case. No ground by the State of Chhattisgarh for i^ of 441 days in filing tliis appeal. s|ince tlie application does not disclose c^ndonation of the huge unexplained hokielessly barred by lunitation and the (;his appeal, does not deserve to be 29/2007 for condonation of delay is this appeal is also dismissed as Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.