Jayanta Bandhopadhyay and George Oomen vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited and State Public Service Tribunal

B.S. Chauhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed for challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 14th August, 2006, rejecting the Claim Petition No. 265 of 2004 only on the ground of limitation. The learned Tribunal has dealt with various provisions of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976 and reached the conclusion that the Claim Petition was time barred, and the provisions of Section 5(1)(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not apply in case of the main petition.

We have heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.D. Khare, learned Counsel for respondent.

The learned Tribunal has only been addressed to the effect that of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and it appears that the learned Counsel appearing before the learned Tribunal did not advance the arguments on the basis of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

In Danda Rajeshwari Vs. Bodavula Hanumayamma and others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that in case the writ Court has the power to entertain a petition but does not want to decide the same itself and relegates the party to some other statutory forum, the Court can prescribe a particular time during which the party may file/present a petition before the said statutory authority. Therefore, this Court may, in exceptional circumstances, pass an order that in case the statutory authority is approached within the stipulated period, the authority can be requested to decide the case on merit without entering into the issue of limitation.

In Virendra Kumar Rai v. Union of India (2004) 13 SCC 463, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that where a party has approached the High Court or Supreme Court without approaching the statutory forum, in a bona fide manner, he may be entitled of the benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. A similar order has been passed in Trai Foods Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. (2004) 13 SCC 656 relegating the party by the Hon''ble Supreme Court to the civil court, giving him the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In such a case, the period for which petition remained pending before the writ Court, can be excluded therefrom.

In Roshanlal Kuthalia and Others Vs. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi, the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and held that the said provisions is wide enough to cover such cases where the defects are not merely jurisdictional, strictly but similarly other defects also. Any circumstance, legal or factual, which inhabits entertaining by the Court of the dispute on the merits of the case within the scope of the Section and a liberal touch must inform the interpretation of the Limitation Act which deprives remedy of one who has a right.

Similar view has been reiterated in Tapan Kumar Sadhukhan Vs. Food Corporation of India and Others, ; World Tel Inc. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Another, and NITCO Tiles Ltd. v. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg. Assn. and Ors. (2005) 12 SC 454.

In view of the above, as the learned Tribunal had not been addressed by the petitioners for grant of benefit u/s 14 of the Limitation Act, though it could have very safely been advanced, we are of the considered opinion, and it is also in the interest of justice, that the learned Tribunal be requested to decide the case on merit. We have also examined the matter that in case the petitioner is given benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the Claim Petition filed by him, would not be barred by time.

Thus, in view of the above, we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and remand the case to the learned Tribunal to be decided on merit.