DATE OF ORDER
28th March, 2023
BENCH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
PARTIES
APPLEANT: 1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DISTT.BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
RESPONDENT: DOMALAL & ORS
SUBJECT
In this order, the court has strictly admonished the State functionaries to not act with malafide intention to give undue advantage to the respondents. Also , the application of condonation of delay cannot be stretched leniently for the State as litigant.
OVERVIEW
- This appeal has been filed for condonation of delay after right long years under sec 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the award dated 12.1.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Labour Court, Betul in Case No.11/WB(F)2009. The reason expressed in the appeal for the delay is that the concerned officer sent a letter for necessary sanction to the higher authority for filing an appeal. The necessary sanction was received from the higher authority on 17.10.2019. The concerned officer submitted an amount of Rs 9,17,692. Thus, it was claimed that the delay was caused due to want of sanction.
- The division bench of this court in Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P and other dated 24.3.23 ordered the State Bar Council to stop the strike and asked all the advocates throughout the State to attend their court work. If any lawyer deliberately abstains from court proceedings and court work or prevents other lawyers to do so then such act will be treated as disobedience to the order of the court and serious proceedings of Contempt Of Court will be initiated against them. In spite of the given order, lawyers abstained from the court work.
JUDGEMENT
- The court issued notice to the counsel of the lawyers for initiating proceedings of Contempt Of Court against the lawyers who abstained from court work even after the order by the court.
- Court ordered to register separate proceedings for the matter.
- In the matter of appeal for condonation of delay, court held State functionaries responsible for negligent or casual in dealing with matter or they deliberately acted so as to provide undue advantage to the respondents.
- Court also viewed that here was no explanation given to the delay of appeal and also the application of condonation of delay did not provide about the steps taken by the authorities.
- Court also observed that the application of condonation of delay has been casually filed probably under the impression that the State will be given different treatment as a special litigant.
- The appeal is silent about when was legal opinion given by the government advocate and whether it has undergone the necessary steps by the functionaries of the state government.
- Court ordered the Chief Secretary of the State of M.P to consider all aspects and conduct an enquiry to find out who were/are responsible for slowing the matter and not filing the appeal within the limitation period.
- As there has been no sufficient reason and explanation shown to Court to condone the delay, the court thereby dismissed the appeal.
CONCLUSION
It was clearly expressed by the court that although application of condonation of delay is dealt with leniency but it cannot be stretched to the extent of treating State as special litigant.
