Branch Manager, Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited Vs Hriprasad Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:8838

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 57 of 2025

¶6

Branch Manager, Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, Through Rajiv Ranjan S/o Ambika Singh, Aged About 43 Years, House No.42 Wardhman Nagar, Near Begna House, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.1) (Amit Singh Director, Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited Wrongly Mentioned).

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Hriprasad Yadav, S/o Pancharam Yadav, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Tedibhadra, Post Office Bhatgaon, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Baloda Bazar, Now Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh (Applicant).

¶10

2. District Excise Officer, Sanyukta Jila Karyalaya, Jila Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.2).

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

(Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board

¶14

20/02/2025

¶15

1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

¶16

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’), challenging the award dated 04.11.2023 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Commissioner Employee’s Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) in Case No.- 03/E.C. Act/2020.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that impugned award was passed by the concerned Labour Court on 04.11.2023. Period of limitation for

¶18

2

¶19

filing of the appeal against the impugned award is 60 days, as such appeal against the impugned award dated 04.11.2023 ought to have been filed till 03.01.2024, but documents received by the appellant from his counsel of trial Court were misplaced, therefore, again said documents were collected by filing application for getting certified copies, hence the delay has occurred in filing the instant appeal. He further submits that delay occurred is bonafide, therefore, I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

¶20

4. Per Contra, counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/claimant would submit that instant appeal has been filed by the appellant after about 11 months and cause shown for filing appeal with delay is not found to be bonafide, as it has not been mentioned by the appellant that how documents were misplaced, & when it was misplaced and subsequently, when application for getting certified documents was filed, as such, there is no bonafide reason shown by the appellant causing delay in filing the appeal, therefore, application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected.

¶21

5. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 supports the contention made by the counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶22

6. Impugned Award was passed by the Labour Court on 04.11.2023. As per Section 30(2) of the Act of 1923, period of limitation to file appeal against the impugned award is 60 days, as such, appeal ought to have been filed till 03.01.2024, but instant appeal has been filed by the appellant on 16.12.2024, i.e., after about more than 11 months from the date of passing of the award.

¶23

7. It has not been mentioned in the application that when first time document was received by the appellants from his counsel and when and from where those documents were misplaced. It has also not been mentioned as to when he came to know about the alleged misplacing of the documents.

¶24

8. Delay accrues substantive right in favour of other party, therefore, there must be bonafide reason and sufficient cause to condone the delay. Having

¶25

3

¶26

considered the aforesaid facts of the case and reasons shown to condone the inordinate delay of 309 days in filing the appeal, is not found to be sufficient, therefore, I am not inclined to allow the I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the same is rejected.

¶27

9. In view of above, instant appeal filed by the appellant is also stands

¶28

dismissed.

¶29

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶30

DEEPTIJHANIRALA Digitallysigned byDEEPTIJHANIRALADate:2025.02.2211:55:08+0530

Branch Manager, Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited v. Hriprasad Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager, Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited v. Hriprasad Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sita Devi Vs Ramavtar

Smt. Purnima Sahu Vs Sevaram Sahu

Smt. Sangeeta Dewangan Vs Murari Lal Dewangan

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Videshi Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saurabh Kumar Dubey Vs Smt. Nisha Sharma