9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Adherence to principles of natural justice, Remand for re-consideration on merits, Compliance with order of pre-deposit Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash an order passed by the Tribunal dismissing their application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The petitioner's factory had been closed since February 1999, and they claimed that due to an employee's actions and subsequent events, they were unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. However, the Tribunal did not find the explanations provided by the petitioner to be sufficient to justify condonation of the delay. The petitioner argued that various factors, including the closure of the factory and personal difficulties faced by their counsel, constituted valid reasons for the delay. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds of not considering the cause for delay accurately and not granting an adjournment request. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and allowing parties to be heard before making a decision. They highlighted that while delays and adjournment requests should not be granted without valid reasons, a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach should be adopted. In the interest of justice and to expedite the resolution of the matter, the Court decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner for reconsideration on merits. The petitioner was directed to comply with the order of pre-deposit within a specified time frame and deposit a sum with the Legal Services Authority. The Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the previous orders and remitting the case for further proceedings. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the need for a balanced approach in considering delays and adjournment requests, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The Court's decision to remand the case back for re-consideration on merits aimed at providing both parties with an opportunity to present their case before the Commissioner. The directive for compliance with the pre-deposit order and depositing a sum with the Legal Services Authority underscored the Court's commitment to ensuring a fair and just resolution of the appeal.
|
