Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vs N. Shivanna & Anr.

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 09.01.2017 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka, Bangalore ( in short, the State Commission) whereby appeal no. 1540 of 2013 of the petitioner against the order of the District Forum in CC No. 51 of 2013 was dismissed.

The present revision petition is delayed as per the Registry by 322 days. Alongwith the revision petition, the petitioner has filed an application being IA No. 5096 of 2018 for condonation of delay.

It is submitted in the application that certified copy of the impugned order dated 09.01.2017 was received on 25.04.2017 by its counsel, who by mistake forwarded the certified copy to some other regional office at Hubli of the petitioner. The Regional Office at Hubli had redirected the certified copy vide its letter dated 02.06.2017 to the office of the petitioner. The case was, thereafter, referred to the panel advocate for the legal advise who vide communication dated 18.08.2017 rendered opinion in the matter. Thereafter, case papers were forwarded to higher authorities i.e. office of the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka. Zonal Office for taking up the matter with Head Office, EPF Organization for filing of the revision petition before this Commission. The authorities instructed the petitioner to obtain legal opinion from an independent counsel and the matter was referred to the Standing Counsel of Government of India, who represents Central Government before the Karnataka High Court vide letter dated 08.01.2018. The legal opinion was received from the Central Government Counsel vide communication dated 08.02.2018. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.02.2018 all the records were sent to RPFC, New Delhi to coordinate with the counsel at Delhi to prepare the file for revision. Vide letter dated 28.02.2018, the Regional Fund Commissioner handed over all the documents to the counsel on 01.03.2018 for preparing the draft of the revision petition. The draft was sent for approval to RPFC and the signed copy of the revision petition alongwith application was handed over to the counsel on 12.03.2018 for filing the same in the Registry of the National Commission. It is submitted that delay of 322 days had occurred due to these reasons and the delay was not intentional and, therefore, delay be condoned. It is also submitted that petitioner has a good case in its favour and every hope to succeed.

The application is opposed by the respondent. It is contended that except for the administrative reasons, no other grounds have been disclosed in the application which prevented the petitioner from filing the revision petition within time. It is submitted that being a Government Department, petitioner is expected to honour the provisions of law and it cannot take advantage of these administrative reasons. It is further submitted that execution petition had already been filed by the respondent before the District Forum. However, the execution was stayed when the petitioner filed their appeal. It is submitted that after the appeal was dismissed, the District Forum continued with the execution. It is submitted that petitioner had filed an appeal against an order of the District Forum in the execution petition and thus, making all efforts of delaying the fruits reaped by the respondent who had served the government department and is now aged man of 70 years. It is submitted that application has no merit and delay be not condoned and the revision petition be dismissed as barred by limitation.

We have heard the counsel for the parties who filed their vakalatnamas today and have perused the record.

It is settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The applicant has to set out a case showing sufficient reasons which prevented him from coming to the Court / Commission within the stipulated period of limitation. Where there is a delay, which the petitioner has not been able to sufficiently explain, the Courts / Commissions are empowered to dismiss the petition / appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court has so held in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 as under:

"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."

It is settled proposition of law that burden is always upon the applicant to show sufficient causes of the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena number of cases has held that though the Court had to take the lenient approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay but where the sufficient causes are not explained, the Courts shall not condone such delays. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in catena of cases stated that even though the law of limitation harshly affects a particular party but it needs to be applied with all its rigors when the statute so prescribes.

The expression 'sufficient reason' requires that the person who comes before the Court requires to give cogent reason which prevented it from coming to the Court although it had been acting diligently. Where the parties have not acted diligently and remained inactive and unmindful of the fact that period of limitation is running fast, in such matters Courts should not exercise its discretionary power under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. In the case of "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), this proposition has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court has held as under:

"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has placed emphasis on the provisions of the Act and held that delay in filing revision petition or appeal under the Act has to be dealt differently since it is a welfare provision and delay should not be condoned routinely. In the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora."

It is, therefore, apparent that when the matter has to be dealt under the Act, extra duties have been casted upon the petitioner to explain the delay. Petitioner is required to show that they have acted diligently and the delay had occurred due to reasons which were beyond their control.

Also, in the case of Post Master Vs. Balram Singh Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Government Departments are not to be given any special privileges and has to be treated like a common person and they are also under special obligation to perform their duties with diligence and commitment. The Apex Court has held as under:

"The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments.'

The contentions in the application seeking condonation of delay only talks of the movement of the files between the Department and the time spent in seeking legal opinion. The delay is, therefore, attributed to the official functioning of the department and also the counsels who took time in submitting their legal opinion. The counsel were also on the panel of the petitioner. There is nothing on record which could show that delay has occurred for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. Had the petitioner acted with diligently, mindful of the time of the period of limitation provided under the Act, delay would not have occurred. Administrative delay cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. We are satisfied that petitioner had not been able to explain the cogent reasons which were beyond their control and which prevented them from coming to this Commission for filing the revision petition within the period of limitation. The application has no merit. Same is dismissed and inordinate delay of 322 days is not condoned. As a consequence, revision petition is also dismissed being barred by limitation.