Right not exercised for a long time is non-existent: High Court

Srinagar, Mar 02: Observing that if a party sleeps over his right, the right not exercised for a long time is non-existent, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Thursday set-aside the orders of Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC), Kupwara wherein the applications of private respondents for condonation of delay of around 17 years were allowed.
The court passed the observation in a bunch of petitions filed by Government of India, Border Security Force challenging the orders passed by ALC Kupwara under Commissioner Employees Compensation Act, 1923 wherein it had allowed the applications of private respondents for condonation of delay to file an application under Commissioner Employees Compensation Act, 1923 without any “lawful justification.”
Setting aside the orders, a bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri said, “Law of limitation revolves around the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” – the interest of the state requires that there should be an end to litigation. This rule of vigilance is founded on the principle of public policy and its object is to induce a party to be prompt to exercise his right.”
The private respondents (legal heirs) had filed the applications before ALC seeking compensation for the death of their relatives, who claimed to be the employees (Porters) of Border Security Force (BSF) and died about 15 to 17 back during the course of their employment.
On the contrary, the GoI through counsel contended that no claim is maintainable because the GoI never hired the services of the deceased persons and their role in Forward Defended Localities (FDLs) at Kupwara is just to assist the Army, who engage and depute Porters at their own level.
According to the petitioner (GoI), there was no employer-employee relationship between it and the deceased persons and applications were otherwise bad for non-joinder of necessary party qua 53 Infantry Brigade of Army as the petitioner never hired any Porter throughout their stay or deployment at Kupwara.
It was contended by the petitioner that ALC has failed to appreciate that sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act contemplates that no claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner under the Act unless the claim is preferred within two years of the occurrence of the accident and no dates, details, nature or cause of employment or dependency have been given and details of the officials with whom deceased persons corresponded or the officials who assured the applicants, appears to be hypothetical.
Perusing the material on record, the court noted that the law on the issue, as such, is trite that where a petition has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain to 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.
The bench said that 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 tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature.
“Creation of an Authority under special legislation cannot be a reason, much less sufficient, to condone the delay and as already explained, it is the applicant who is obliged to explain the delay and not the Authority or the Court, as the case may be, to make out a case for condonation of delay,” the court said.
The bench pointed out that all the persons stated to be the employees of the petitioner died about 15 to 17 years back and the authority below has failed to appreciate that no claim for compensation can be entertained by it under the Act unless the claim is preferred within two years of the occurrence of the accident within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act.
Allowing the pleas, the court remanded back the case to ALC Kupwara to decide the applications filed by the private respondents afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.
The court directed the parties to appear before the authority below on 3rd April, 2023.