Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020003712025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/108/2025 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD DIMAPUR NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI. EZOKU-U AND 3 ORS W/O LT. PEWEZO MEKRISUH, C/O SMTI. SEKUTHOLU, H. NO. 607, KUBA KHEL, NAGA UNITED VILLAGE, DIMAPUR NAGALAND 2:SMTI. HIPETO-U WIFE OF LATE KHWETSOZU MEKRISUH 3:SHRI WUHIWE SON OF LATE PEWEZO MEKRISUH 4:SHRI NIZOSHE TARA SON OF LT. KEWECHULO TARA OWNER OF TRUCK NL-08 A 113 Advocate for the Petitioner : MOAJUNGLA, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 03.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. Moajungla, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B. N. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the Page No.# 2/7 claimants/opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant/Insurance Company praying for condonation of delay of 511 days in filing the connected appeal, wherein the judgment and order dated 07.12.2023, passed by the learned Labor Commissioner-cum- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Kohima in Compensation Case No. 2/2022 has been impugned. 3. Ms. Moajungla, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though in the Compensation Case No. 2/2022, the judgment and order passed on 07.12.2023, however, when the said Compensation Case No. 2/2022 was fixed for final hearing on 08.11.2023, the order was reserved by the learned Commissioner after hearing the learned counsel for the present applicant. She further submits that as no cause-list is used to be published in the office of the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Kohima, the next date is used to be informed to the litigant/counsel by the Commissioner himself or the office of the Commissioner orally. She further submits that the present applicant or its engaged counsel was never informed regarding pronouncement of impugned judgment by the learned Commissioner in the aforesaid case. She submits that it is only on 04.12.2024, when the applicant received the notice regarding execution of the impugned judgment and award from the office of the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Kohima, the applicant came to know about the impugned judgment. 4. She further submits that thereafter, the engaged counsel Page No.# 3/7 for the applicant applied for and obtained the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 10.12.2024 and thereafter, the matter was processed for getting administrative approval of the appropriate authorities of the applicant's Insurance Company for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment. She further submits that the engaged counsel of the applicant Company was given a go-by for filing the appeal against the impugned judgment on 12.03.2025. She, however, submits that after the said date, while the counsel for the applicant's company was preparing the draft of the memo of appeal, he was informed by the Labor Commissioner for not to file an appeal as the impugned judgment is going to be modified by the commissioner. 5. She further submits that thereafter on 9th of April 2025, the engaged counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company inquired as to whether the impugned judgment has been modified or not. He was informed by the legal assistant of the Commissioner to wait for some time. She further submits that thereafter though the engaged counsel for the applicant kept reminding the legal assistant of the learned Labor Commissioner as to whether any modification has been made in the impugned judgment by the Commissioner and he was repeatedly asked to wait. Ultimately, it was only on 20th June, 2025, he was informed that no such modification will be not done and accordingly the appeal was filed on 09.07.2025. She further submits that the reasons stated by the applicant/Insurance Company in the instant interlocutory application were beyond the control of the applicant/Insurance Company and as such same may be regarded as sufficient cause which prevented the Page No.# 4/7 applicant/Insurance Company from preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 6. She further submits that though at the time of preferring the connected appeal, the applicant/Insurance Company did not produce any certificate from the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Kohima under Section 30(1)(a) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 regarding deposit of the awarded amount and a certificate thereto by the learned Commissioner, however, she submits that later on the applicant has deposited the awarded amount before the Employee’s Compensation, Kohima and an additional affidavit to that effect has been filed by the applicant company in this case. 7. Under above circumstances, the learned counsel for the applicant prays for condoning the delay of 511 days in preferring the connected appeal. 8. On the other hand, Mr. B. N. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3/claimants has vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay in preferring the connected appeal by the Insurance Company. He submits that the applicant/Insurance Company has wrongly computed the period of delay which has been occasioned in this case in preferring the connected appeal. He submits that the actual delay is of 641 days, however, same has been shown as 511. As such, the delay of 130 days in preferring the connected appeal has remained unexplained. He further submits that even if assuming that the applicant came to know about the impugned judgment and award on 04.12.2024. However, after the said date also, there is considerable delay which Page No.# 5/7 remained unexplained. 9. He submits that the certified copy of the impugned judgment and award has been admittedly obtained by the applicant/Insurance Company on 10.12.2024. However, thereafter, lapse of 211 days from the same date, the appeal was filed on 09.07.2024. 10. He submits that the prescribed period of limitation for preferring an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act is 60 days and which is known to the Insurance Company. Under such circumstances, the internal administrative formalities or lapses committed due to bureaucratic functioning of the applicant company may not override the period of limitation prescribed by the statute. As such, he submits that the delay caused in preferring the connected appeal may not be condoned and this interlocutory application may be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 12. Some disturbing facts, if same are presumed to be true, came to the notice of this Court that no cause-list is maintained in the office of the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation for maintaining the progress of compensation cases pending before the said commission. 13. Even if pendency of claim cases may be less, however, the litigant and the engaged counsel for the litigant have a right to know about the next date as well as the progress of the compensation cases pending before the office of Commissioner, Page No.# 6/7 Employee’s Compensation, Kohima. 14. The office of the Employee’s Compensation, Kohima shall, henceforth, maintain a duplicate Court diary/cause-list diary, which shall be accessible to the litigants/engaged counsel for the litigant in claim cases which are pending before the said commission. 15. As regards the grounds stated by the applicant in said interlocutory application that it came to know about the impugned judgment only on 04.12.2024 i.e., more than one year after the impugned judgment was delivered, same is difficult to be believed. Had there been some kind of diligence on the part of the applicant or its engaged counsel, the fact of delivery of judgment would not have remained unknown to the applicant or its engaged counsel for such a long period of time. 16. Otherwise also, the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application that even after obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment on 10.12.2024, the appeal could not be filed till 09.07.2025, in the considered opinion of this Court does not constitute sufficient cause. The internal administrative procedures of the applicant company has to conform to the statutory provision which prescribes the maximum period of limitation for filing the appeal under Section 30 of Employee’s Compensation Act as 60 days only. 17. Under such circumstances, by merely taking plea that only for seeking administrative approval for filing the appeal, the delay has been caused may not be regarded as sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As such, the Page No.# 7/7 applicant have failed to show any sufficient cause for delay caused in preferring the connected appeal. The said delay is not condoned and this interlocutory application is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant