Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Purushottam s/o Janbaji Langote, was a labourer whose services were terminated by the respondents (the President, Secretary, and Head Master of a school) on 19 August 1991. He approached the Conciliation Officer, and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed his claim on 12 February 2001 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, on 18 April 2001, the appellant filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, challenging his termination. The appeal was filed with a delay of 36 days from the date of termination. The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining that he was pursuing an alternative remedy before the Labour Court in good faith. The School Tribunal dismissed the condonation application on 30 November 2004 on two grounds: first, that the appellant and his counsel were absent; and second, that the appellant had not disclosed sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 5 August 2005, affirming the School Tribunal's order. The appellant appealed to the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the appellant's pursuit of an alternative remedy before the Labour Court in good faith constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The Court noted that the School Tribunal had not considered the merits of the delay cause and had dismissed the application solely on the ground of absence. The Division Bench set aside the orders of the School Tribunal and the Single Judge, condoned the delay, and directed the School Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits within six months. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Pursuit of alternative remedy in good faith constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay - The appellant's services were terminated on 19.8.1991; he approached the Conciliation Officer and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, which dismissed his claim on 12.2.2001 for lack of jurisdiction. He filed an appeal before the School Tribunal on 18.4.2001, with a delay of 36 days. The School Tribunal dismissed the condonation application on grounds of absence and lack of sufficient cause. The High Court held that the appellant was pursuing an alternative remedy in good faith, which is a sufficient cause for delay, and that the School Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay. (Paras 4-6) B) School Tribunal - Condonation of Delay - Liberal Approach - The School Tribunal should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay when the appellant has been pursuing an alternative remedy in good faith - The Tribunal's dismissal of the condonation application solely on the ground of absence of the appellant and his counsel was improper, as the merits of the delay cause were not considered. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had sufficient cause for the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal before the School Tribunal, given that he was pursuing an alternative remedy before the Labour Court in good faith.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The orders dated 5.8.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1090 of 2005 and the order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal STN No.17 of 2001 are set aside. The delay in filing the appeal before the School Tribunal is condoned. The School Tribunal is directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits within six months from the date of receipt of the order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- sufficient cause
- alternative remedy pursued in good faith
- liberal approach in condonation
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
