Skip to content


Parasuram Jatanand and Co. and anr. Vs. State of Mysore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 106 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1958Kant189; AIR1958Mys189; ILR1957KAR99; (1957)35MysLJ391
ActsLimitation Act, 1908 - Sections 5 and 29(2); Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 - Sections 41; Mysore Shops and Establishments Rules - Rule 34
AppellantParasuram Jatanand and Co. and anr.
RespondentState of Mysore and ors.
Respondent AdvocateD.M. Chandrasekhar, Adv. for ;Adv. General and ;S.K. Venkataranga Iyengar, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....than what is required to be paid - employer contending that there was break in service and hence workman has not worked for 240 days continuously, hence not entitled to full gratuity as claimed - controlling authority held that employer-corporation has not proved that workman has not worked for 240 days continuously hence ordered that workman entitled to balance of gratuity appealed by employer - appellate authority held that order does not call for interference -writ petition challenging order held, authorities have not passed order under section 2-a of the act. documents does not show that workman has not at all worked for 240 days in a year. hence only inference that can be drawn is that workman had worked for 240 days continuously in a year and is entitled to balance of amount of..........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.....
Judgment:

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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //