The High Court dismissed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the Labour Court's order condoning a 421-day delay in filing an application to bring the legal heir on record. The Court found no reason to interfere with the discretionary order allowing the application.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
C.R.P. No. 3959 OF 2011
Friday, the Fourteenth day of October, Two Thousand and Eleven
Between
The Superintendent Engineer, APSEB Now APCPDCL, Siddipet, Medak District and others
Petitioners
AND
E.Narasavva (died) per L.R. E.Satyanarayana
Respondent
ORAL ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed assailing the order dated 2.9.2010 passed in I.A. No. 31 of 2010 in M.P. No. 13 of 2006 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 421 days in filing
the application to bring legal heir on record.
The petitioner’s mother, who filed the above M.P. for computation of monetary benefits, died on 16.10.2008. The petitioner, being unaware of the fact as to which counsel his mother had entrusted the case, was unable to file application within time to bring him as her sole legal heir on record and in the process of knowing about the counsel who was dealing with the case, there occurred a delay of 421 days in filing the application to bring him on record as legal representative.
The application was resisted by the petitioners herein on the ground that even after the court below has afforded so many opportunities, the petitioner failed to bring himself on record being the L.R. It is also disputed as to whether the respondent herein is the sole legal representative of the deceased. It is further contended that since the delay is not properly explained, the application is liable to be dismissed.
The court below on the dicta that the matter has to be disposed of on merits and as no serious contention is raised in the counter to suspect the bonafides of the petitioner, has allowed the application by the order impugned.
The pendency of the M.P.No. 13 of 2006 filed by the mother of the petitioner is not in dispute. The Labour
Court, repelling the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondent herein is not the sole legal heir of the deceased, has observed that the said controversy can be decided during the course of enquiry. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Labour Court has passed discretionary order condoning the delay of 421 days in filing the petition to bring the Legal Representative on record, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
__________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed
October 14, 2011 MAS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's order condoning a delay of 421 days in filing an application to bring the legal heir on record under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the application to bring the legal representative on record was provided.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Superintendent Engineer, APSEB, APCPDCL, Siddipet and others
E.Narasavva (died) per L.R. E.Satyanarayana
Ghulam Mohammed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
