National Insurance Co. vs C.K. Mani and Others

T.L.Viswanatha Iyer, J.—The order of the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner is dated August 13, 1991, A gist of the order was communicated to the petitioner on January 17, 1992, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order on January 20, 1992 which was ready on May 4, 1992, and issued on May 6, 1992, at a time when the Court was closed for the summer holidays. The appeal was filed on May 23, 1992. If the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order from January 20, 1992 to May 6, 1992, is excluded in the computation of the period of time for appeal, the appeal is in time. But if the time is reckoned from January 17, 1992, without such exclusion as stated by the office, the appeal is out of time. It has been held by this Court in Vijayaraghavan Vs. Velu and Another, that the provisions of the CPC apply to appeals u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, as the appeal lies to an established Court. The provisions of Order 41, Rule 1 of the CPC are, therefore, applicable and the appellant has to file a certified copy of the order of the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner along with the appeal. Having regard to the provisions of Section 29(2)) of the Limitation Act, 1963, it has got to be held that Section 12 thereof applies to such appeals. In that event, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order for production along with the appeal is liable to be excluded in the compulation of the period of time for the appeal. This was the view taken by the Punjab High Court in Rajinder Singh Vs. Labhu Ram Munshi Ram and Another, with which we are in agreement.

Time runs from January 17, 1992. If the period from January 20, 1992 to May 6, 1992, is excluded, the appeal filed on the reopening date of Courts is in time. The office is, therefore, directed to number the appeal.