Creation Of Special Authority No Reason To Condone Delay, Party Must Offer Explanation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently set aside an order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner condoning at least 15 years delay by certain persons in seeking compensation under Employees Compensation Act on behalf of their relatives, on the solitary premise that it is a creation of special legislation.Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed,"Creation of an Authority under...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently set aside an order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner condoning at least 15 years delay by certain persons in seeking compensation under Employees Compensation Act on behalf of their relatives, on the solitary premise that it is a creation of special legislation.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed,
"Creation of an Authority under special legislation cannot be a reason, much less sufficient, to condone the delay and as already explained, it is the applicant who is obliged to explain the delay and not the Authority or the Court, as the case may be, to make out a case for condonation of delay."
The bench was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by Government of India, Border Security Force challenging the orders passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner(ALR) Kupwara under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 in terms of which it had allowed the applications of private respondents for condonation of delay to file an application under Commissioner Employees Compensation Act, 1923 without any "lawful justification."
In the instant matter the private respondents (legal heirs) had earlier filed an application before ALC seeking compensation for the death of their relatives, who they claimed to be the employees (Porters) of Border Security Force (BSF) and died about 15 to 17 years back during the course of their employment. The private respondents alongside had also moved a motion seeking condonation of delay, which had been allowed and was consequently being impugned by the petitioners.
Challenging the order, GoI through counsel contended that no claim is maintainable because the petitioner never hired the services of the deceased persons and their role in Forward Defended Localities (FDLs) at Kupwara is just to assist the Army, who engage and depute Porters at their own level.
The petitioner further submitted there was no employer-employee relationship between it and the deceased persons and applications were otherwise bad for non-joinder of necessary party qua 53 Infantry Brigade of Army as the petitioner never hired any Porter throughout their stay or deployment at Kupwara.
It was also contended by the petitioner that ALC has failed to appreciate that sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act contemplates that no claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner under the Act unless the claim is preferred within two years of the occurrence of the accident and no dates, details, nature or cause of employment or dependency have been given and details of the officials with whom deceased persons corresponded or the officials who assured the applicants, appears to be hypothetical.
Taking recourse to the material on record, the bench observed that where a petition has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain to the court as to what was the sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation.
Expounding the law applicable the bench said that in case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature.
Pointing out to the fact that all the persons stated to be the employees of the petitioner had died about 15 to 17 years back, Justice Sekhri said that the authority below has failed to appreciate that no claim for compensation can be entertained by it under the Act unless the claim is preferred within two years of the occurrence of the accident within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act.
Pressing into force the famed Italian maxim of “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” - the court added that interest of the state requires that there should be an end to litigation. This rule of vigilance is founded on the principle of public policy and its object is to induce a party to be prompt to exercise his right, Justice Sekhri underscored.
Accordingly the bench while allowing the pleas and set aside the order passed by the ALR Kupwara. The court further remanded back the case to ALC Kupwara to decide the applications filed by the private respondents afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.
Case Title: Union Of India Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 43
Counsel For Petitioner: Mr Nazir Ahmad Bhat
Counsel For Respondents: Mr T.M Shamsi DGSI, Mr Ilyas Nazir Laway GA