THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13677 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay in filing Second Appeal under A.P. Shops and Establishments Act is entertainable or not. It appears, third respondent-workman, questioning his termination order, filed appeal in A.P.S.E. Case No.7 of 2005 before the first respondent-primary authority and the same was allowed by an order dated 22.1.2008 directing reinstatement of th workman with continuity of service and with 40% back wages. Aggrieved thereby, management filed Second Appeal before the second respondent- appellate authority under Section 48(3) of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. Along with the said appeal, it has also filed A.P.S.A.M.P.No.9 of 2008 under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the second appeal. However, the said application was dismissed by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 14.5.2009 by holding; “As per Section 48(3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, second appeal should be filed before Second Appellate Authority within 30 days from the date of communication of the decision of the First Appellate Authority. Neither Sec.48 nor Rule 21 enables the second appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the second appeal as Rule 21(1) deals with first appeal, which contains that if there is delay in preferring the first appeal the appellate authority may condone the delay and may admit the appeal if he is satisfied that there is sufficient cause. Rule 21(2) deals with the procedure for hearing the First Appeals. Rule 21(3) lays down that the second appellate authority shall follow the same procedure enumerated in sub-rule 2. Hence there is no power conferred in the second appellate authority to condone the delay beyond 30 days. Section 48(3) which deals with second appellant is silent about the powers of the second appellate authority on condonation of delay. In the circumstances, I have no option than to dismiss the second appeal as no powers are vested in this authority for condonation of such delay”. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the language of Section 48(3) of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act is silent as to whether the application to condone the delay is available. Section 48(3) reads as under: “Against any decision of the authority under sub-section (2), a second appeal shall lie to such authority as may be notified by the Government within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision and the decision of such authority on such appeal shall be final and binding on both the employer and the employee and shall be given effect to within such time as may be specified in the order of that authority. Provided that the second appeal shall not be entertained unless the employer deposits the entire amount of back wages as ordered by the appellate authority under sub- section (2) or the amount of compensation ordered as the case may be. Provided further if the second appeal is against the order of reinstatement given by the appellate authority under sub-section (2), the employee shall be entitled to wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings before appellate authority”. The learned counsel further contends that once the provision is silent, it must be deemed that the authority has discretion to condone the delay on its own merits and in the facts and circumstances of the case, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is maintainable. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment in MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL v. EX.OFFICIO, JOINT SECRETARY AND ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER[1], wherein it is stated that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the proceedings not only before the Civil Court, but also before all other authorities and not only to the proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code, but to all other proceedings even under the Special or local law and the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act can be invoked for condoning delay in presenting the appeals. The principles laid down in the said judgment are as under: “(i) That Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the appeals filed under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and also the appeals provided under the Orders which are promulgated under Section 3 of the said Act; (ii) That in cases where condone delay applications have been filed, they shall be dealt with by the appellate authority as to whether there was plausible explanation or cause for delay and if there is such plausible explanation or cause, then the said delay be condoned; (iii) That in cases where applications for condoning the delay were not filed, a time of one month from the date of the receipt of this order is granted to file such applications and if the same are filed as stipulated, they shall be dealt with as mentioned in Clause (ii) above; and (iv) That in cases where the appeals have not been preferred, they are directed to be preferred within one month from the date of the receipt of this order with a delay condonation petition and if complied, the same consideration is applicable as mentioned in Clause (2) above.” The learned counsel by placing reliance on the above said judgment submits that unless and until there is an express prohibition to file application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the same can be filed seeking condonation of delay wherever law is silent. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the principle laid down in the above judgment would also applicable to the case on hand since Section 48(3) of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act is silent as to entertaining of application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. In view of the same, the order impugned is set aside and the A.P.S.A.M.P.No.9 of 2008 shall stand allowed and the respondent- appellate authority shall take up the appeal and after completing all the formalities by the appellant, as required under law, including depositing of any amounts etc., decide the same on its own merits, as if delay is condoned. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 25.6.2010. DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13677 of 2009 25.6.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13677 of 2009 Date: 25th June, 2010 Between: M/s Kemin Industries South Asia Pvt. Ltd., .. Petitioner And Authority under Section 48 of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, W.G. district & others. .. Respondents [1] 1997(1) ALD 623 (DB)