CRP/1071/2026 of V.Ramakrishnan Vs The Sub Regional Office on 17 August 2026

COMMON ORDER

These revision petitions have been filed to set aside the order dated 19.11.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Unnumbered O.P.No.137 of 2025 on the file of the Employees’ State Insurance Court, Coimbatore.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Marudhachalam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Dwarakesh Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the respondents in both these revisions.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions states that what was sought to be condoned was only 209 days in representing the papers before the Employees’ State Insurance Court cum Labour Court, Coimbatore. However, the Labour Court has erroneously construed the said applications, as if it is one filed for condonation of delay in filing the setting aside application itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the fact that on 06.08.2024, an application has been e-filed and it was also subsequently returned on 13.08.2024. He would therefore state that the delay being only in representing, the petitioner should not be non suited on an erroneous construction of material facts.

4. However, the learned counsel for the respondent in both the revision petitions states that though the delay may be one seeking condonation of delay in representing the papers, the Registry had raised a query with regard to the maintainability itself, since it is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the provisions of the Limitation Act. He would therefore state that if at all this Court is granting any indulgence to the petitioner, the issue of limitation is to be left open.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the papers.

6. Admittedly, it is the case of the revision petitioner that I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed only seeking condonation of delay of 209 days in representing an O.P.SR.No.137 of 2025. Unfortunately, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court appears to have been carried away, thinking that the application was an application to condone the delay in filing the OP, challenging the impugned proceedings. On this limited ground, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the issue of limitation is left open to the respondent, to agitate in the main proceedings.

7. In view of the above, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the order dated 19.11.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 is set aside. Subject to the OP otherwise being in order, the same shall be numbered and disposed of, in accordance with law, giving liberty to the respondents to agitate the issue of limitation in preferring the OP as well. No costs. 17.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To

1. The Deputy Director, Sub Regional Office, E.S.I Corporation, No.1897, Trichy Road, Panchdeep Bhavan, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore – 641 045.

2. The Recovery Officer, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, No.1897, Trichy Road, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore – 641 045.

3. The Employees’ State Insurance Court, Coimbatore.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP Nos.1071 & 1073 of 2026 17.08.2026