N. Sreenivasa Rau, J.
1. The question for consideration is whether the Head Quarters Assistant to the Commissioner of Labour (Respondent 3) had jurisdiction to entertain Respondent 4's appeal -- petition against the Petitioners under Section 41 of the Shops and Establishments Act when it was preferred beyond the period of 30 days prescribed in Rule 34 of the Rules under the Act. Respondent 3, following the view expressed by Government in Revision Petition No. 2/50-51 in their order No. L.Section 544-47/ L.W. 27-51-2, dated 10-5-1951, thinks that by virtue of Section 29(2)(b) of the Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act becomes applicable to such cases and the delay in the presentation of an appeal can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown.
But Section 5 of the Limitation Act itself requires that it should have been made applicable under an enactment. The Shops and Establishments Act does not make Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to appeals under Section 41 of the Act, nor has any other I enactment been pointed out which attracts the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to such appeals.
2. Respondent 3 had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal beyond the prescribed period.
3. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and a Writ will issue quashing the impugned order of Respondent 3.
4. There will be no order as to the costs of this petition as the Petitioner and his learned Counsel were absent at the time of hearing.
5. Petition allowed.