1989 (9) TMI 405 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in preferring an appeal.
2. Genuineness of medical certificates.
3. Continuous illness of the second respondent.
4. Alleged appeal petition sent to the writ-petitioner.
5. Fundamental right to approach a court of law for justice.
6. Starting point of limitation for filing an appeal.
7. Time limit prescribed by the rules.
8. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. Discretion of the appellate authority in condoning delay.
10. Application of rules of limitation equally to all litigants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Preferring an Appeal:
The second respondent filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act after a delay of 285 days, citing illness as the reason for the delay. The appellate authority condoned the delay based on medical certificates and the fundamental right to justice, but the High Court found this condonation unjustified due to insufficient evidence of continuous illness and lack of explanation for certain periods.

2. Genuineness of Medical Certificates:
The medical certificates produced by the second respondent were issued by Dr. S. Pavunraj, a registered medical practitioner. Despite skepticism about the genuineness of these certificates, the High Court accepted them as valid given its jurisdiction under Article 226. However, the court noted that the certificates did not cover certain periods, leaving gaps unexplained.

3. Continuous Illness of the Second Respondent:
The appellate authority erroneously concluded that the second respondent was continuously ill based on the medical certificates. The High Court highlighted gaps in the illness periods and the respondent's admission of moving about in October 1980, concluding that there was no evidence of continuous illness for the entire period.

4. Alleged Appeal Petition Sent to the Writ-Petitioner:
The second respondent claimed to have sent an appeal petition by registered post on 6 September 1980, but provided no evidence to substantiate this claim. The High Court found no proof of the appeal petition being sent, as no copy, postal receipt, or acknowledgment was produced, nor was the brother-in-law who allegedly sent the petition examined.

5. Fundamental Right to Approach a Court of Law for Justice:
The appellate authority held that justice cannot be denied merely on the ground of limitation, citing cases emphasizing the importance of addressing grievances on merits. However, the High Court clarified that rules of limitation must be followed unless a sufficient explanation is provided.

6. Starting Point of Limitation for Filing an Appeal:
The appellate authority misinterpreted the starting point of limitation, citing a case that was not applicable. The High Court clarified that the limitation period began on the date of service of the dismissal order, 11 July 1980, and not from any alleged appellate order.

7. Time Limit Prescribed by the Rules:
The appellate authority incorrectly assumed that the time limit prescribed in the rules lacked force since the Act did not contemplate such a limit. The High Court pointed out that Section 41(2) of the Act explicitly refers to a prescribed time limit, and rules made under Section 49 have the same effect as the Act itself.

8. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The High Court emphasized its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the appellate authority's decision if it was found to be unjustified. The court held that the management was entitled to challenge the condonation of delay before the High Court.

9. Discretion of the Appellate Authority in Condoning Delay:
The High Court found that the appellate authority's discretion in condoning the delay was not exercised judiciously, as the reasons provided were not supported by evidence. The court concluded that there was no sufficient cause for the delay, making the condonation unjustified.

10. Application of Rules of Limitation Equally to All Litigants:
The High Court rejected the argument that the second respondent's case should be viewed with compassion due to his poor status. The court asserted that rules of limitation apply equally to all litigants, regardless of their financial status.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the appellate authority's order condoning the delay. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to rules of limitation and providing sufficient evidence to justify any delay in filing appeals. The decision underscored the need for consistent application of the law to all litigants, ensuring fairness and justice in legal proceedings.