FAO No. 1289 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 1289 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: October 28, 2009 E.S.I.C. ........ Appellant Versus S.P. Goyal .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the applicant/appellant Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the non applicant/respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. C.M. No. 6399 CII of 2009 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 66 days in filing the main appeal. Upon notice, reply to the application has been filed, contesting the condonation of delay. However, in para 7 of the application, detailed reasons for the delay have been given. It is mentioned that the delay occurred at the level of Shri Krishan Lal, Superintendent, Legal Branch, Employees' FAO No. 1289 of 2009 (O&M) 2 State Insurance Corporation, Ambala, who was entrusted the case for completing the case papers and further transmitting the same to the Senior Standing Counsel for the applicant- Corporation at Chandigarh. In fact, the department had also taken action against the official responsible for the delay. Some other appeals were also filed by the Corporation in the High court accompanied with the application for condonation of delay. In those appeals, the delay was on account of the same reason as mentioned in this application. The delay stood condoned in all those cases on account of the same reasons as mentioned herein, holding that the delay in these circumstances is not mala fide. One such order was passed in C.M. No. 17044 CII of 2009 in FAO No. 2486 of 2009 condoning the delay. In view of the above and also keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 66 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Appeal Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation while challenging the order dated 23.10.2008 passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Ambala submitted that at the time of allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned orders dated 31.05.2005, Exhibit A-2 and A-3, liberty to proceed a fresh in accordance with law i.e. by issuing fresh demand notice as well as after granting due opportunity of being heard has not been granted. The observation made by the Court in Para 10 of the Judgement has been brought to the notice of the Court, which reads as under:- “......Therefore, the demand notices under challenge seem to be in utter violation of principles of natural justice and reason being so they are not sustainable in the eye of law. However, FAO No. 1289 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the fresh demand notice may be issued by the respondent to the applicant providing thereby proper opportunity of being heard to him so that he may defend his case before the authorities or make proper representation in support of his defence. On the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the orders under challenge are liable to be set aside.” In view of the observation of the Court in para 10 of the judgement, itself, there is merit in the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed off with a direction that the appellant is at liberty to issue fresh demand notice to the respondent. The respondent shall be granted proper opportunity of being heard. The demand notice so issued shall be decided in accordance with law. Consequently, the order dated 23.10.2005 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Act is modified to the above extent. Disposed off in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 28, 2009 mohan