M/S.New Grand Hotel vs. Shenbagam

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. New Grand Hotel, sought to condone a delay of 1598 days in filing a first appeal against an award dated 28.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, in W.C.No.63 of 2014. The petitioners claimed the delay was due to the vacancy in the post of Deputy Commissioner, their own ill health requiring treatment, and a lack of proper notice regarding the ex-parte award. They stated that they were only informed of the pending proceeding by Revenue Authorities in February 2020 and subsequently served with a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. They also contended that the claim was bogus and the deceased was not working at the time of the accident. The respondent argued that the petitioners were aware of the ex-parte order, as their agent had received copies, and that the delay was unexplained, depriving the claimant of their rights.

Held

The Court allowed the petition to condone the delay and permitted the respondent to withdraw 50% of the amount already deposited by the petitioners. The Court noted the submission by the petitioners' counsel that the entire amount had been deposited and that the petitioners had no objection to the respondent withdrawing 50% of the deposited amount. The Court also acknowledged that the questions of whether the deceased was a workman and whether the deceased was ill during the course of employment could be decided in the main claim petition. The Registry was directed to number the appeal if it was otherwise in order. The Court did not explicitly decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather focused on the condonation of delay and interim relief.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1598 days in filing the first appeal against the award dated 28.08.2015 in W.C.No.63 of 2014, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, should be condoned? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the delay was attributable to the vacancy in the Deputy Commissioner's post, their proprietor's ill health and treatment, and the lack of proper notice, especially after being informed that future communications would be provided. They also claimed the award was ex-parte and that they had a good chance of succeeding in the appeal. They further stated that the deceased was not working at the time of the accident. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the reasons provided for the delay were unbelievable, as the petitioners' agent had received copies of the order and they were aware of it. They argued that the delay was not properly explained and that the claimant's rights were being deprived. The respondent also asserted that the deceased died during the course of employment while working in the hotel.