Delay In Filing Review Application Cannot Be Condoned Without Looking Into Its Maintainability: Bombay High Court

Judgment Copy (LiveLaw Official Link): https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jsw-steel-coated-products-ltd-anr-v-amarlal-parashramji-sharma-617297.pdf 

Sections & Legal Principles Involved

1. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA)

• Section 7 – Establishes Labour Courts.
• Section 11 – Procedure & powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals & National Tribunals.
• It gives powers of a Civil Court (like summoning witnesses, receiving evidence, etc.), but it does not give review power.
• Review is a substantive jurisdiction — unless expressly given, it cannot be assumed.
• Section 17 & 17A – Publication & enforceability of awards.
• Once an award is published and comes into force, the Labour Court becomes functus officio (it cannot reopen the matter).

 Advocate’s point: “Nowhere in the IDA is there a provision granting review jurisdiction to Labour Courts. Hence, review is not maintainable.”

 2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – For Comparison Only

• Section 114 CPC – Provides review jurisdiction.
• Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Grounds for review (discovery of new evidence, error apparent, etc.).
• But these apply only where review power is expressly given.

 Advocate’s point: “Labour Courts are statutory bodies. Unlike Civil Courts under CPC, they do not have inherent review powers. Their powers begin and end with what the IDA gives them.”

Section (Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review of Judgment) Summary 1.     Who can apply? o   Any person who feels aggrieved by a decree or order. 2.     When can it be filed? o   If an appeal is allowed but not filed. o   If no appeal is allowed at all. o   If it’s a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes. 3.     Grounds for Review: o   Discovery of new and important evidence or matter, which was not within knowledge even after due diligence at the time of judgment. o   Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. o   Any other sufficient reason (a broad, residual ground). 4.     Where to file? o   To the same Court which passed the decree or order. 5.     Special rule when appeal is pending: o   A party who hasn’t appealed can still apply for review even if another party has filed an appeal. o   Exception: No review if (a) the appeal grounds are common to both, or (b) the applicant is a respondent and can already present the same case before the appellate court.

 

3. Limitation Act, 1963

• Section 5 – Condonation of delay (“sufficient cause”).
• BUT: Courts can apply Sec. 5 only if the main proceeding is maintainable.
• If the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the review, Sec. 5 cannot be invoked.

 Advocate’s point: “Condonation of delay is only meaningful if the main proceeding is valid. No jurisdiction = no delay condonation.”

Section 5 – Extension of Prescribed Period (Condonation of Delay) Core Rule: ·       If an appeal or application (except execution applications under Order XXI CPC) is filed after the limitation period, the court may admit it if the party shows sufficient cause for the delay. Key Point: ·       Execution proceedings (Order XXI CPC) are not covered → delay in execution cannot be condoned under Sec. 5. Explanation: ·       If the delay happened because the appellant/applicant was misled by any order, practice, or judgment of the High Court while calculating limitation → that itself can be treated as “sufficient cause.”   In Layman’s Words: This section is basically the “late submission excuse” rule. ·       If you file an appeal/application late, you can still request the court to accept it — but you must prove a genuine reason for the delay. ·       Courts are generally liberal in interpreting “sufficient cause,” especially in justice-oriented matters, but not in execution cases.   Illustration: ·       Suppose limitation for filing an appeal is 30 days. You file on day 40 because you were hospitalized. You can request condonation of delay under Sec. 5. ·       But if you file a delay in execution petition (like for attachment of property), Sec. 5 won’t help you.    This is one of the most used sections by advocates — especially in appeals, revisions, and applications — when clients come late.

 4. Registration of Judicial Precedent

• Nivruti G. Ahire v. State of Maharashtra (2007 SCC OnLine Bom 492) – Delay cannot be condoned for an application which itself is not maintainable.
• Sudhir Janardhan Desai v. Hyphosphite & Co. – Review power must come from statute, not presumed.
• SC principle: Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or by delay condonation.

 Where Advocates Can Use This

This principle is not just for Labour Courts — you can use it across all statutory forums & tribunals where parties misuse “review applications” or “delay condonation.”

Labour Law

• When employers/employees file a review of an award/order under IDA.
• You can knock it out citing lack of review power.

Consumer Commissions

• Consumer Protection Act gives limited review powers (Sec. 40 of 2019 Act).
• If a forum tries to entertain a review without statutory authority, you can cite this case.

Revenue / Tax / Rent Tribunals

• Many tribunals (like Rent Controllers, Revenue Divisional Officers, etc.) don’t have express review power.
• Objection: “Review is not maintainable — delay condonation cannot be considered.”

Service Tribunals / Industrial Tribunals

• Example: State Service Tribunal, Administrative Tribunal. Unless their Act gives review power, no review lies.

Civil & Quasi-Criminal Authorities

• Wherever a special statute creates an authority (like Motor Accidents Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lok Adalats) — unless the Act gives review power, no review is possible.

Advocate’s Takeaway (How You Argue in Court)

Step 1: Attack jurisdiction first.

“My learned friend’s review application is not even maintainable. The Labour Court is a creature of statute, with no review powers under the IDA. Hence, the question of condonation of delay does not arise.”

Step 2: Cite Section references.

“Unlike Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1, the Industrial Disputes Act does not confer review power. Section 11 only gives limited procedural powers. Thus, review is foreign to Labour Courts.”

Step 3: Hammer precedent.

“In Nivruti Ahire (2007), the Bombay High Court made it clear: if the main application is not maintainable, no question of delay condonation arises. The same principle applies here.”

Step 4: Conclude firmly.

“Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by sympathy or delay condonation. This review deserves outright rejection.”

In one line for you as an advocate:
This case arms you with a strategy — before entering delay debates, first kill the review itself on maintainability grounds. It saves time, prevents misuse of tribunals, and protects finality of awards.