Judgment:
1. This petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (the Act). Respondent 1 was appointed as a Lab Chemist on 21-12-1970; thereafter on 6-9-1985 he was promoted as Chief Chemist. In the year 1986-87 as there was loss in the assets of the society, the society in its resolution dated 7-11-1987 requested the 1st respondent to proceed on leave with effect from 9-11-1987. Accordingly, the 1st respondent went on leave from 10-11-1987. The 1st respondent treating the said resolution of the society as termination without holding any enquiry raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent allowed the dispute directing the petitioner-society to reinstate the 1st respondent in service with monetary benefits by his order dated 31-5-1989. This order was challenged by the petitioner-society by way of filing a revision petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision No. 74 of 1991.
2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent raised two contentions:
(i) The revision petition filed by the petitioner-society is barred by limitation;
(ii) The revision petition as against the final order passed by the 2nd respondent in a dispute under Section 70 of the Act, is not maintainable.'
3. It is in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in order to prefer a revision petition under Section 107 of the Act, no limitation has been prescribed under the Act, and therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner-society shall not be dismissed onthe ground of limitation. Alternatively, it is submitted that even assuming that limitation has been prescribed for filing revision petition, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the revision petition as the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay in preferring the revision petition.
4. Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, no doubt has not prescribed any period of limitation for the purpose of filing a revision petition under Section 107 of the Act.
5. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has been constituted under the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976. Under Section 15 of the Tribunal Act, 1976, the Tribunal with the previous sanction of the State Government may make regulations consistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder for regulating the practice and procedure of the Tribunal and the 'disposal of its business including regulations as to the time within which, in the absence of any express provision in the relevant enactment, appeals or applications to the Tribunal may be filed. By virtue of the above said provision, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations are framed. Regulation 61 of the said Regulations reads as follows:
'61(a) Whenever any law, under which the Tribunal exercises jurisdiction, provides for filing of an appeal, revision or review, but does not specify the period of limitation therefor, the following periods of limitation are prescribed:-
1.
Firstappeal
Sixtydays.
2.
Secondappeal
Ninetydays.
3.
Revision
Onehundred twenty days.
4.
Review
Ninetydays.
5.
Forsetting aside ex parte order
Thirtydays.
(b) The provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act No. 36 of 1963) shall apply mutatis mutandis to all appeals and petitions'.
A reading of the above said provisions, it is clear that under Section 15 of the Tribunal Act, 1976 the Tribunal may by making regulations prescribe the period of limitation for the purpose of preferring appeals or applications to the Tribunal, in the absence of any express provision in the relevant enactment. As stated earlier, under the Act, no period of limitation has been prescribed for the purpose of preferring revision before the Tribunal under Section 107 of the Act. In the absence of such express provision providing for limitation, the period of limitation prescribed under the regulations is applicable. Under Regulation 61 of the Appellate Tribunal Regulations, the revision petition has to be filed within [190] days. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that no limitation has been prescribed for the purpose of filing revision petition.
6. In the case on hand there is a delay of 661 days in filing the revision petition before the Tribunal. Under Regulation 61(b) of the Regulations, the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, are made applicable to all appeals and petitions. Under this provision, the Tribunal is conferred with the power to condone the delay in preferring the appeal or petition provided there is a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal or revision.
7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed an affidavit along with the application for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. The Tribunal after considering the said causes has held that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. This finding recorded by the Tribunal does not call for interference since the said finding is based on facts. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal was right in dismissing the revision petition on the ground of delay.
8. Since I have held that the Tribunal was right in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches I do not propose to consider the ground urged by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the revision petition before the Tribunal under Section 107 of the Act, in thispetition.
9. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is accordingly rejected.