P. Narayan Rao Vs. State

.....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]. - the accused-petitioner thus failed to submit the contribution card in form no. according to regulation 26, clause (c), there is default only after the expiry of 42..........of the factory named orissa timber trading company situated in mal-godown, cuttack. he was prosecuted for offences under sections 85(e) and 85(g) of the employees' state insurance act, on the footing that the orissa timber trading company is a factory within the meaning of section 2(12) of the act and that the accused-petitioner being manager is the principal employer as defined under sub-section (17) of section 2 of the said act.2. paras 5 and 6 of the prosecution report succinctly state the prosecution case against the accused. they are quoted herein below:5. that under regulation 26 of the employees' state insurance (general) regulations 1950, every principal employer is required to submit to the corporation the contribution cards duly affixed with the contribution stamps along with the return of contribution cards form no. 6 within 42 days of the expiry of the respective contribution period.6. that the contribution cards duly affixed with contribution stamps along with return of contribution card on form no. 6 have not been submitted within the statutory time limit by the accused person for the contribution period ended on 25.5.63 for set-c and 27.7.63 for set-a and 28.9.63 for set-b in respect of their employees. they are therefore liable to be prosecuted for commission of these offences under sections 85(e) and 85(g) of the article.the accused-petitioner thus failed to submit the contribution card in form no. 6 duly affixed with contribution stamps within the statutory limit.3. there are three classes of contribution periods. for the class known as set-c the contribution period ended on 25.5.63 and for the class known as set-a the contribution period ended on 27.7.63 and for the class known as set-b the period ended on 28.9.63. under regulation 26 of the employees' state insurance (general) regulations, 1950, the accused should have submitted the contribution cards duly affixed along with the return of the contribution card within 42 days of the expiry.....