9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2296/90 and batch held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings before the Collector and that, therefore, reasons given to condone the delay for filing the application were valid. The reasons were that they had applied for certified copy of the award and after its supply and in consultation with the counsel, the reference application came to be filed. Accordingly, High Court condoned the delay and directed the LAO to make the reference. These appeals thus are filed against the said order. Section 18(1) envisages that any interested person who has not accepted the award may, by application in writing to the Collector, require him to refer the dispute raised in the application for the determination of the court. Under sub-Section [2], the grounds on which objection to the award is taken have to be stated in the application. However, under the proviso to sub-Section (2) every such application shall be made: (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 5 is one of them and extends the prescribed time occupied by those sections. Section 5 of the Limitation Act extends the prescribed period of limitation in certain cases on showing sufficient cause which would be a question of fact in each case. Any appeal or application other than an application under any of the provisions of Order 21 of the CPC may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the applicant or appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not instituting the suit or preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation is not necessary for the purpose of this case. Hence omitted. If the suit is barred by limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, an application for extension of the prescribed time may be made to the court and the applicant may satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period The question, therefore, is: whether the Collector is a court for the purpose of Section 18(1) of the Act? The right to make application in writing is provided under Section 18(1). The proviso to subsection (2) prescribes the limitation within which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond the prescribed period by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act and if it finds that it was not so made, the court would decline to answer the reference. Accordingly, it was held that since the reference was made beyond the limitation, the court was justified in refusing to answer the reference. It would thus be clear that one of the conditions precedent to make a valid reference to the court is that the application under Section 18(1) shall be in writing and made within six weeks from the date of the award when the applicant was present either in person or through counsel, at the time of making of the award by the Collector under clause (a) of proviso to sub-section (2). The Collector, when he makes the reference, acts as a statutory authority. In State of Punjab Anr.v.Satinder Bir Singh [(1995) 3 SCC 330], a Bench of two Judges [to which one of us, K.Ramaswamy, J., was a member] was to consider whether the application for reference under Section 18 was barred by limitation and the direction issued by the court for making reference was valid in law. The Collector made the award on August 1, 1970. The notice under Section 12(2) was received by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . of India Ors. [(1969) 2 SCC 199], a Bench of three Judges of this Court was to consider whether the industrial Tribunal is a court within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act when it entertains application under Section 33C (1) and (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held that Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act applies to an application referable under the CPC and it contemplates an application to the court as provided in the Third Schedule to the Limitation Act. Section 4 of the Limitation Act also refers to the closure of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to a court which is to entertain an application or an appeal after the prescribed period has expired on its satisfying that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making application. The Labour Court was held not a court within the Limitation Act when it exercises the power under Section 33C (1) and (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In Smt. Sushila Devi v. Ramanandan Prasad Ors. [(1976) 1 SCC 361], the question arose whether the Collector to whom application under Section 3 of the Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder consideration had directly arisen. Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applied for condition of the delay in seeking or make a reference under Section 18. It was contended that by operation of sub-section (3) as also applicable to States of Maharashtra and Gujarat, the Collector is a court which is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section , CPC and that, therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply. The Division Bench negatived the contention and held that the Collector is not a court under CPC attracting the provisions of the Limitation Act. The contra view taken by that court was held to be not a good law and accordingly the same was overruled. The same question had arisen in Kerala where there is no specific local provision like Section 18(3), locally amended by Maharashtra and Gujarat. Contention was raised that by operation of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, Section 5 stands attracted since there is no express exclusion of the limitation under the Act. Therefore, the delay was condonable. The Division Bench negatived the contention and held that the Collector is not a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Sub-section (2) of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
