AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
There is delay of 77 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by affidavit, delay of 77 days is condoned. I.A. No. 36132/2011 is disposed of.
Heard on admission.
The intra-court appeal has been preferred as against order dated 18.07.2011 passed by the Single Bench in CWP-7797/2008 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that inordinate delay in filing the same.
The order was passed by the Industrial Tribunal u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the I.D. Act'') on 09.12.2005. The writ petition was filed after three years and due to unexplained inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, the same was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, the intra-court appeal has been preferred.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has submitted that delay ought to have been condoned as the order affects rights of large number of employees and further appellant was having good case on merits, as such, the writ petition ought to have been entertained on merits.
We are not satisfied with the submissions made by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant. Delay of three years has not been explained in the writ petition. It has been mentioned that matter was referred to the head office and after sanction was granted, the writ petition had been filed. However, on specific query being made by this Court, Learned Counsel has fairly stated that order passed by the Industrial Tribunal u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act stood complied with and benefit ordered to be paid under Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the Bank has already been disbursed. However, it was submitted that, in case, writ petition was allowed, benefit may be recovered. Whatever that may be; there was inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and was not satisfactorily explained. The writ petition has rightly been dismissed by the Single Bench. We are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Single Bench. Accordingly, the intra-court appeal is dismissed.