Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 328 (BOM)

Vijaykumar Malviya v. Union Of India

2018-02-02

MANISH PITALE

body2018
JUDGMENT Manish Pitale, J. (Oral) - This is an appeal challenging the order dated 03-01-2017 passed by Fourth Labour Court, Nagpur, whereby the application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the appellant in preferring an application for compensation under the provisions of the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923 has been rejected. 2. The appellant herein was working as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). It is claimed by the appellant that when he was on duty i.e. on 0-712-2007, he tried to assist a passenger who was slipping from a running train and in that process he himself slipped and that he was trapped between the train and platform, resulting in grievous injuries. As a result, during treatment, both his legs were amputated. He approached the concerned authorities, seeking compensation and medical reimbursement of Rs. 1,77,486/-. Only an amount of Rs. 19,300/- was sanctioned in this regard by the concerned authority and that payment is also yet to be disbursed. 3. It is the contention of the appellant that when he became aware of his entitlement for compensation, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an application, but on 01-08-2012, the same was withdrawn, since the said Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was advised to approach this Court and accordingly he filed Writ Petition No. 4754 of 2013. The said writ petition was also disposed of as withdrawn on 11-09-2013. 4. Thereafter, in May, 2014, the appellant filed an application before the Labour Court/Commissioner for employee''s compensation under the provisions of the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923, for compensation. As the said application was required to be filed within a period of two years under the provisions of the said Act, it was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. In the said application, the appellant explained in detail, the reasons why he had approached the Labour Court under the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923, after considerable delay. The fact that he had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and this Court was stated in the said application. It was also pointed out that after the amputation of his legs he had been finding it difficult to move around and that artificial legs were also not of much help. The fact that he had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and this Court was stated in the said application. It was also pointed out that after the amputation of his legs he had been finding it difficult to move around and that artificial legs were also not of much help. The applicant placed all such details on record before the Court below, but by the impugned judgment and order dated 03-01-2017, the Court below rejected the application for condonation of delay, as a result of which the claim of the petitioner on merits has not been considered at all. 5. Shri Deharia, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that there was sufficient material on record for the Labour Court to have condoned the delay and that the grievance of the appellant ought to have been considered on merits. On the other hand, Shri Lambat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there was an inordinate delay of about 5 years in approaching the Labour Court and that the appellant had failed to prove satisfactory reasons for condonation of such delay. 6. I have perused the contents of the appeal and the documents filed therewith and upon consideration of the contentions of the rival parties, I am of the opinion, that the grievance of the appellant deserves consideration. It is settled law that delay in approaching the Court for raising grievance has to be explained satisfactorily and at the same time it is expected that the Court below deals with the merits of the grievance and that it does not throw out applications or appeals by adopting hypertechnical approach. One who sleeps over his rights cannot be permitted to raise grievances beyond the period of limitation. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the appellant was at fault or he slept over his rights. The record shows that after having suffered serious life threatening injuries which resulted in amputation of both legs, the appellant was obviously in discomfort after the incident which had occurred on 7.12.2007. After having recovered from such a serious incident, the appellant seems to have acquired the knowledge of his right to compensation and thereafter the appellant took steps to air his grievance. It is unfortunate that he was given inappropriate legal advise to first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal and thereafter this Court to claim compensation. After having recovered from such a serious incident, the appellant seems to have acquired the knowledge of his right to compensation and thereafter the appellant took steps to air his grievance. It is unfortunate that he was given inappropriate legal advise to first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal and thereafter this Court to claim compensation. After withdrawing the proceedings before the Tribunal and this Court, finally in May, 2014, the appellant approached the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation/Labour Court for seeking compensation under the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923. 7. Looking to the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the delay in approaching the Court below on the part of the appellant was deliberate, although there was a delay of about five years. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion, that sufficient grounds have been made out for condonation of such delay and that the Court below committed an error in taking an extremely strict view of the matter and rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the appellant. 8. It is necessary that the claim of compensation raised by the appellant is decided on merits. Therefore, I am inclined to allow this appeal. At the same time, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is justified in contending that the appellant cannot take benefit of long period of five years that he took in approaching the Court below. It is submitted that, eventually, even if the claim of compensation of the appellant is decided in his favour, he is certainly not entitled to interest for the period of delay in approaching the Court below. I find merit in the said contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 9. Therefore, in the light of above, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 03-01-2017 passed by the Labour Court, Nagpur is quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the appellant before the Court below is allowed and it is directed that his application for compensation filed under the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923, is to be considered on merits. The impugned judgment and order dated 03-01-2017 passed by the Labour Court, Nagpur is quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the appellant before the Court below is allowed and it is directed that his application for compensation filed under the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923, is to be considered on merits. It is further directed that in the event the appellant is granted any compensation or relief by the Court below on merits, he shall not be entitled to interest on such amount for the period of delay in approaching the Court below. Needless to say, it is made clear that this Court has not made observations on merits of the matter and it will be open for the Court below to take its own view and decide the application of the appellant on merits, in accordance with law. 10. In view of above, the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.