IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12438 of 2001 BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7. 1.12.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has filed the instant application for quashing the order dated 12.5.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dalmia Nagar in Reference Case No.2/94 by which the respondent no.2 has been reinstated in service with full back wages. A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ application. The learned counsel submits that respondent no.2 was its employee and on the relevant date he was working as conductor in Bus No.BRB-4723 on Gaya- Patna Express Service. On 4.10.1975 at 8.40 A.M. in course of checking it was found that four passengers were traveling without having valid ticket. A departmental proceeding was initiated and he was found guilty of charges in the enquiry. Thereafter he was dismissed from service by the Chief of Administration dated 10.7.1976, which was communicated to respondent no.2 through Memo No.6689 dated 14.7.1976. The respondent no.2 filed an appeal before the then Managing Director, B.S.R.T.C. which was too dismissed on 28.3.1977. After 13 years the respondent no.2 raised dispute against the order of dismissal sand a reference was made to the Labour court 2 by the Government on 23.12.1993. The counsel for the petitioner submits that though the issue of limitation was raised, the Labour court did not consider the same. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vrs. K.P.Madhavankutty & ors. (2000)2 SCC 455. However, the counsel for the O.P.No.2 states that purpose of limitation law is not to destroy the right of a party. Learned counsel further submits that the preliminary function of the court is to impart substantial justice between the parties. He further contends that objecture is to provide legal remedy. It would be relevant to quote para 13 of the Judgment rendered in the case of Bihar State of Bihar vrs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2307: 13. In Nand Kishore vrs. State of Punjab, (1995) 6 SCC 614 : (1995 AIR SCW 4650 : 1996 Lab IC 610) this Court under the peculiar circumstances of the case condoned the delay in approaching this Court of about 31 years. In N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 1998 AIR SCW 3139: AIR1998 SC,3222) this Court held That the purpose of Limitation Act was not to Destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span for the legal remedy for the general welfare. The primary function of a court 3 is to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. The object of providing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. If the explanation given does not smack mala fides or is not shown to have been put forth as a part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. In this cont- ext it was observed ( Para 9 of AIR of AIR 1998 SC 3222): “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 a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a 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 super- ior Court should not disturb such finding, much less 4 in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the fisrt Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court 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.” . After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of Tribunal so far as the issue is concerned. Further it is found that it has not considered the issue of limitation raised by the petitioner. As such, the matter is remitted back to the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dalmia Nagar for the limited purpose of adjudication on the point of limitation. If the Tribunal finds justifiable ground for condoning the delay then the B.S .R.T.C. would be bound to implement its earlier award dated 12.5.2000 passed in Ref. Case No.2/94. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)