Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/5263/2009 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5263 of 2009
In
FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 5 of 2009
=========================================================
RATUDIBEN
KAKADIA PARSING - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BORSAND
NAGARPALIKA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARSHADRAY A DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,1.2.6 MR HARDIK
A DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,1.2.6
MR YV SHAH for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 15/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. H. A. Dave appearing for the applicants and
learned advocate Mr. Y. V. Shah appearing for the respondent.
With
consent of the parties, the application is taken up for hearing and
decision today.
Present
application has been taken out under Section-5 of the Limitation Act
seeking condonation of delay of 680 days in preferring the First
Appeal against the award dated 30/12/2006 passed by the Commissioner
for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court (S.D.), Anand in Workman
Compensation Application No.52 of 1992.
The
present application and the relief prayed for are opposed and
contested by the opponent-municipality. The opponent-municipality
has filed affidavit and objected the prayer for condonation of delay
of 680 days. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has vehemently opposed the
application and submitted that the applicant was only a daily wager
and therefore has no base to make claim against the municipality.
On
perusal of the affidavit, it comes out that the affidavit deals more
with the merits of the claim rather than delay part and the request
is for condonation of delay. With regard to the main prayer in the
application, all that is stated in the affidavit is that sufficient
cause has not been made out and so far as the submission of the
applicant that the applicants come from very lower strata of the
society is concerned, the opponent municipality has stated in the
affidavit that legal aid is available and therefore such submission
should not be accepted.
I
have considered all the submissions made by learned advocates for the
respective parties. Present proceedings arise from the award passed
by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court (S.D.),
Anand. The applicants herein had preferred an application under the
provisions of Workman Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation in
respect of the victim, who, during treatment died in the hospital
allegedly due to the accident which arose during the course of
employment. The claim of the applicant under the Workman
Compensation Act, 1923 has been dismissed in entirety.
In
the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appeal is considered
on merits, it would be in the interest of justice and will not cause
prejudice-much less serious or substantial prejudice-to the opponent
municipality.
On
the other hand if the applicants who are the legal representatives of
deceased victim, will suffer immense prejudice if they are non-suited
only on ground of delay.
Hence,
after taking into account the objections made by the
opponent-municipality and upon taking into consideration the reasons
stated in para-4 of the application, I am of the view that it would
be in the interest of justice to examine the case/appeal of the
applicants (whose claim for compensation in respect of the victim who
died allegedly on account of the accident which arose in the course
of employment), on merits and for that purpose to grant the present
application. Thus, the relief prayed for in para-6(a) is granted.
The delay of 680 days caused in filing the First Appeal is condoned.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
(ila)
Top