High Court Kerala High Court

Wilson.A @ Bincy vs The Managing Director on 19 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Wilson.A @ Bincy vs The Managing Director on 19 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2256 of 2010()


1. WILSON.A @ BINCY,S/O.ANTONY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,K.S.R.T.C,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.CELINE JOSEPH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :19/11/2010

 O R D E R
             A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
            ----------------------------------------------------------
                      C.M.Appln.No.2925 of 2010 &
                        M.A.C.A.No.2256 OF 2010
             ---------------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010
                                 JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

The prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act is to condone the delay of 578 days in filing the appeal.

2. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on October

15, 2008. But according to the petitioner/appellant, he was undergoing

Ayurvedic treatment on his right knee ,left wrist etc. from September 30,

2008 onwards. The doctor had advised him to take “bed rest till his disease

was completely cured”. Therefore, he could not personally go and make

any arrangements to apply for certified copy of the award. On April 4,

2010, he made arrangements to file an application to obtain a copy, which

was delivered on May 31, 2010. But it is seen that the appeal is filed only

on September 13, 2010. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay of

more than four months even after obtaining the certified copy; even if we

believe the version given by the petitioner for the delay in applying for the

copy.

MACA.No.2256/2010 2

Any how, the so called explanation offered for condonation of the

inordinate delay is not at all satisfactory. Therefore, the delay petition is

dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
sv