Employees State Insurance Corp. v. M/S Unicop Technologies Ltd.

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 27.9.2011 by virtue of which the demand raised by the appellant against the respondent has been quashed and the matter was remanded back to the appellant/corporation for the purpose of reassessing the liability of the respondents, keeping in view the documents which are sought to be produced by the respondents.

2. The issue which was involved in the matter was with regard to the non-payment of the contribution payable by the respondent under 2013:DHC:1878 ESI Act. It was alleged by the appellant corporation that on the date of inspection, the respondent company was having more than 20 employees drawing wages less than or equal to Rs.6500/- while as, this was disputed by the respondent. The appeal has been filed by the appellant alongwith an application bearing CM no.4220/2013 seeking condonation of 372 days delay in filing the appeal and CM no.4221/2013 seeking condonation of 32 days delay in re-filing the appeal.

3. The explanation given for delay in filing the appeal is that the record of the present appeal got misplaced alongwith few other case file due to transfer in the department of the appellant/Corporation, in the month of October/November, 2011 and accordingly, it took some time to trace the file and the file could be traced only on 28.12.2012. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the delay of 372 days in filing the appeal be condoned. The application seeking condonation of delay has been drafted in a most casual manner without giving the details of the date when the file was misplaced or lost in shifting; the name of the official who was handling the file. The application also does not make a mention that the plea taken by the appellant even constitutes ‘sufficient cause’ as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

4. The law of limitation is same for a private party and the public sector undertaking or a corporation. It is to be borne in mind that after the expiry of the period of limitation, a vested right accrues in favour of the party against whom the appeal is preferred and such right should not be disturbed easily. However, an appeal may be entertained after expiry of limitation period but a reasonable and cogent explanation which constitutes ‘sufficient cause’ within the Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be shown. This has not been done. A casual approach has been adopted by the corporation in almost all cases and only delayed appeals are being filed by the corporation.

5. I accordingly do not consider it to be a fit case where the delay be condoned. Apart from condonation of delay in filing the appeal, there is another application seeking condonation of delay in refiling, which further fortifies that the Corporation and its officers are acting in a very careless and negligent manner without having any regard for the time. The application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, the appeal has become time barred and the same is also dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. APRIL 12, 2013 RN