Silpi Majumder, Member:
This appeal is filed by the Appellant-OP-1 before this Commission out of time by 132 days from the date of passing the judgment by the Ld. District Forum, 24-Parganas (South). The complaint was dismissed against the OP-2 on contest and allowed on contest against the OP-4 and exparte against the OP-1 and 3.
In the petition for condonation of delay it is stated by the Appellant that on 18.04.2011 the office of the Appellant received a letter from the Advocate for the Complainant-Respondent-1, wherein the gist of the complaint was stated along with the ordering portion of the impugned judgment has also been mentioned. From the said letter it was revealed to the Appellant that the Ld. Forum below has directed the OP-1-Appellant to release the provident fund dues of the Complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order to him along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of retirement till the payment is made. The OP-1 was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from this date and this amount would be paid from his salary and also from other staff and officer who are responsible for non-payment of the dues. Under no circumstances this compensation amount would be paid from Government exchequer. The OP-1, 3 and 4 were also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/- each to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the judgment. The OP-3 and 4 were directed immediately to co-operate the OP-1 to release the dues of the Complainant. On 20.04.2011 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) received the aforesaid notice and made an endorsement âImmediate on the notice and subsequently the concerned officer caused search information about the school and also about the Complainant-Headmistress but could not gather any information from their records. As per official procedure the officer concerned intimated the facts on completion of search of information in office record to the competent authority i.e. Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Legal) who on 02.05,2011 directed the E.O. (L) to obtain a certified copy from the CDRF, Alipore and copy of the complaint from the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. On 03.05,2011 the E.O. (L) contacted a panel Advocate who applied and obtained the certified copy on 04.05.2011 and handed over to the E.O. (L) on 05.05.2011, but whenever on 03.05.2011 and 05.05.2011 he approached the Complainants Advocate for a copy of the complaint, but the Ld. Advocate refused to hand over the same. Thereafter a copy of the complaint was collected by the Appellant-OP-1 from Calcutta District Primary Council Office on 05.05.2011. After receiving the copy of the complaint the Appellant had gone through the records and verified with the office records, but could not find WB file no-PRI/CAL/0026/2007 and PPO no-CAL/S/P/8073 till 18.05.2011. Due to insufficient documents the concerned person could not consult and instruct his Advocate and as such the Advocate for the Appellant could not prepare the appeal and file the same within due time before the State Commission. Subsequently on 23.05.2011 the Appellant instructed his Advocate to prepare a draft for appeal. On 25.05.2011 the Ld. Advocate received the approved draft from the competent authority for final print and on 26.07.2011 the bank draft was received by the Ld. Advocate and filed the appeal for which some days has been consumed due to official procedure. According to the Appellant as there was no intentional laches on the part of the Appellant if the delay is not condoned and the appeal not admitted, the Appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury and accordingly prayer has been made by the Appellant to allow the petition for condonation of delay.
The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-1 has raised vehement objection against the petition for condonation of delay stating that the Appellant-OP-1 has allowed the Ld. Forum to dispose of the complaint exparte against the OP-1 as inspite of due service and receipt of notice the OP-1 did not bother to take any step to contest the petition of complaint before the Ld. Forum below. But in the petition for condonation of delay no cause has been shown by the Appellant in that respect. It has been further submitted by the Respondent-1 as there is no cogent explanation for such delay; the said petition should be rejected.
The Ld. Counsel for the OP-4 appearing before this Commission has prayed for allowing the petition for condonation of delay.
We have perused the petition for condonation of delay and heard arguments from the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, Respondent-1 and 4 respectively. It is seen by us that the impugned judgment was delivered by the Ld. District Forum, 24-Parganas (South) on 21.03.2011 in the case no-198/2009, application for the certified copy of the said judgment was made by the Appellant on 04.05.2011 and the same was received by the Appellant on the same date and this appeal was preferred before this Commission on 01.08.2011 along with a petition for condonation of delay. Therefore there is delay of 132 days in preferring this appeal from the date of passing the judgment by the Ld. Forum below. Out of the said days the Appellant is entitled to get the statutory period of limitation of 30 days and one day for collection of the certified copy of the judgment and for this no explanation is necessary. So there is delay of 101 days for which cogent explanation is necessary. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-1 has filed the Xerox copy of the daily order sheets of the Ld. Forum below. From where it is evident order the order no-9 that the notice was duly served upon the OP-1 in respect of the complaint case. To ascertain this order clearly, the LCR has been called for. We have also perused the LCR, wherefrom it is also evident that the notice was received by the OP-1 putting its seal and signature, but did not bother to appear before the Ld. Forum below to contest the complaint. The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent also has attracted our notice to the original copy of the said receipt. Being compelled the Ld. Forum below fixed the case for hearing exparte against the OP-1 after giving due opportunity to appear and to file written version.
In respect of the explanation given by the Appellant in the petition for condonation of delay we are of the view that up to paragraph no-9 of the said petition the explanation is over all satisfactory as on the whole till 08.06.2011 cogent reason has been explained, but from 09.06.2011 till 26.07.2011 for a period of about 46 days there is no explanation in the said petition. How 46 days were consumed the petition is totally silent. There are several judgments passed by the Honble Supreme Court as well as the Honble National Commission that unless cogent reason is given for delay in filing the case/appeal the delay should not be condoned and in respect of delay satisfactory and cogent explanation is mandatory. In the instant petition as there is not at all any explanation for about 46 days in respect of delay, we are not inclined to allow the petition for condonation of delay.
Hence it is ordered, that the petition for condonation of delay be dismissed on contest against the Respondent no-1 and 4 and exparte against the Respondent no-2 and 3 without any cost. The office is directed to send down the LCR to the Ld. Forum below along with a copy of this order forthwith.