CMA.SR/103802/2026 of The Divisional Manager, The United India Insuranc Vs Thirumathi SSundari on 10 November 2026

Order

The petition is filed by the Insurance Company to condone the delay of 864 days in preferring the above appeal against the order in EC.No.186/2022 on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-2, (Joint Commissioner of Labour-2) (Additional Charge) Tribunal at Chennai-6.

The Insurance Company has filed the above appeal with the delay of 864 days. The respondents in the above appeal, filed EC.No.186/2022 on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-2, (Joint Commissioner of Labour-2) (Additional Charge) Tribunal at Chennai-6. claiming compensation for the death of one Sakthivel, who was employed under the 6th respondent. The claim was contested by the petitioner/Insurance Company. However, the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour, on 12.12.2023, allowed the claim, by granting compensation of Rs.11,53,175/- at 12% interest per annum, from the date of accident. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Joint Commissioner, the above appeal is preferred by the petitioner with the delay of 864 days.

The petitioner, in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, has explained the delay as follows:-

‘’4.I submit that the above order passed by the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour at Chennai [Camp Cuddalore], dated 12.12.2023 was dispatched by the office of JCL and was received by the appellant on 01.04.2024. Our counsel who had conducted the above case before the JCL had forwarded the copy of the order along with his opinion to the TP Claims Hub. The papers were sent to the RO who had forwarded the same to the appeal panel lawyer seeking his opinion regarding further course of action. He had called for the investigation report and relevant documents and after receipt of the he had offered his legal opinion. It is further submitted that JCL-II, Chennai, had only a camp office at Cuddalore, whereas the administrative and operational activities were being carried out from Chennai. Consequently, the process of initiating a Demand Draft, obtaining the necessary approvals, and forwarding the same through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due [RPAD] consumed considerable time and contributed to the delay. The papers were misplaced with other files and after tracing out the papers, the papers were sent to the appeal panel lawyer to file the appeal and the appeal is being filed on 23.06.2026 resulting in the delay of 864 days in filing the appeal.’’

From the above averments, this Court finds that in fact there is a total absence of explanation for the delay, what is stated appears more to be in the nature of an excuse. The delay of 864 days which is more than two years, ought to have been properly explained. A reading of the above paragraph shows that the reasons for the delay are totally bereft of particulars. Vague statements are made that the learned counsel who conducted the case, gave his opinion with order copy, that they were sent by the RO for opinion of the appeal panel counsel and that the papers got misplaced. In which office the papers were misplaced, are not explained. In my view, the affidavit does not disclose any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 864 days. The length of delay is, definitely, a relevant factor. The delay not having been properly explained, this Court is of the view that for the indolence and the lethargy of the petitioner’s officials, the respondents cannot be penalised.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Basawaraj and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisistion Officer [2013 [14] SCC 81], reiterated that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case and that if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is writ large, delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds. The Court further held that the law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its vigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court relied on the maxim dura lex sed lex [i.e.,] ''the law is hard but it is the law''.

The Apex Court, in paragraph No.15 of the judgment, succintly summarised the issue of limitation as follows:- ''15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.''

It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed in SLP [Civil] No.31248/2018 [Pathapati Subba Reddy [Died] By LRs and Others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector [LA], decided on 08.04.2024.

Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has not furnished coherent, consistent or credible explanation for the inordinate delay of 864 days.

In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, and since the delay has not been properly explained, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition and hence, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is also dismissed at the SR stage itself. No costs. 10-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP

N.MALA J. AP CMP No. 20040 of 2026 AND CMA SR NO. 103802 OF 2026 10-11-2026