Farid Mian Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. Through Its General Manager (P and T R). C.C.L. and ors.

.....extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - this document clearly established that petitioner did raise the issue of date of birth at least in the year 2001. this communication is not addressed to the..........of the petitioner also that the service record has been interpolated in any manner, however, there is one document i.e. communication dated 20th of july, 2001 (annexure-a), issued to the staff officer, kuju area, whereunder the request of the petitioner for rectification of the date of birth has been rejected. this document clearly established that petitioner did raise the issue of date of birth at least in the year 2001. this communication is not addressed to the petitioner, therefore, petitioner is quite right in saying that he had no intimation of this document, it is also not a case that petitioner has approached at the fag end of service because he had earlier approached the respondents-company well before the date of this superannuation. under these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent- company to hold an enquiry with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of request made by him after hearing him and to take appropriate action. let the enquiry be concluded within a period of two months and outcome communicated to the petitioner. in the event, contention of the petitioner is to be disagreed, it shall be by a reasoned order. petition disposed of.