Condonation of delay under Sec.5 of Limitation Act can't be done as 'Judicial Generosity', each days delay needs to be explained, Read HC Order

 

 The Karnataka High Court has held that an applicant seeking relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed as law of limitation is not an equitable statute but a statute of repose.

The single-judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani ruled the above while rejecting a petition filed challenging the order passed by Labour Officer, rejecting claim of the petition on the ground of delay of 8 years.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner was working in a Nursing Home from June 1994 as Aya till 02.03.2008 and onwards her service was declined by the respondent. It was averred that during the course of her employment, she was paid less wages than the minimum wages. The Nursing Home used to give verbal assurance of payment and continued the same even after refusal of her employment.

The petitioner sought a direction to the Nursing Home, to pay the difference amount of Rs.1,28,648.52 and also 10 times penalty in In her claim petition. Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay but the same was dismissed by the Labour Officer.

Read also : No Accused can be granted Bail just because he is a Govt. Servant, Read HC Order

Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that Authority has erroneously proceeded to pass the order and erred in not condoning the delay. It is submitted that the Authority has misdirected itself and refused to condone the delay and rejected the claim petition.

On the other hand learned AGA justified the order of the Authority and submitted that as per proviso to Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a claim application shall be made within six months from the date on which the minimum wages (or other amount) became payable. But in the present case, the application is filed after 8 years.

It was also submitted that there was an inordinate delay in filing the claim application. It is also submitted that the petitioner has failed to show the sufficient cause to condone the delay.

Read also : Can a Bail Order passed in a Rape Case be cancelled just because Victim was not heard? HC says YES, Read Order

High Court Observation

The Court at the outset noted that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of the Limitation Act employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. The matter has to be dealt with in a rational commonsense pragmatic manner and justice.
"Since sufficient cause has not been defined, the Courts are left to exercise discretion to conclude whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. The only guiding principle to be seen is whether a party has acted with reasonable diligence and had not been negligent and callous in the presentation of the matter. The entire gamut of facts is to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception."

The Court went onto note that the law is well settled that delay cannot be excused as a matter of ‘judicial generosity’ in any special case. An order extending time should give sufficient indication that the discretion given by the law has been judicially exercised.

Read also : Can a Bank escape from Compensating the Client who lost Money as wrong Account number was supplied to him? SC says NO, Read Judgement

"The law is also well settled that an order excusing delay is not final and is liable to be questioned at a later stage. But an Appellate Court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below. But the differentiating factor is whether the exercise of discretionary power is just and proper."

The Court stated that the petitioner adhered to the contention that the reason for the delay is the false assurance given by the respondent and the same couldn't be accepted.
"The reason to enlarge time must be so detailed as to let the Court or the Authority concerned see the nature of the reason and the circumstances under which it arose. The applicant who seeks the indulgence of the Court under Section 5 must act with utmost good faith and make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the applicant to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an application. In the absence of sufficient cause, the Court of the Authority has no power to extend the time."

The Court also observed that Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 mandates that the application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages [or other amount] became payable.

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure