Holiday filing and election work rules: next-day petition filing was timely, but regular employees were not covered by Rule 118.

An election petition filed on the next working day after the prescribed period ended on a holiday was treated as in time under the General Clauses Act, because the rule requiring filing "not later than fourteen days" was read as a period that permits filing on the reopening day when the office was closed. On the election-work issue, Rule 118 was held to apply only where persons are employed in connection with the election for payment; regular employees who merely do casual election work alongside their normal duties do not satisfy that test. On the facts, there was no proof of substitution from ordinary duties, so the corrupt-practice finding failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an election petition presented on the next working day after the last day, when the last day fell on a holiday, was within time under the General Clauses Act. (ii) Whether employees already in the candidate's regular service, who did some election work, were employed in connection with the election so as to attract Rule 118.

Issue (i): Whether an election petition presented on the next working day after the last day, when the last day fell on a holiday, was within time under the General Clauses Act.

Analysis: The prescribed period for presenting the petition expired on a holiday. The expression in the election rule that the petition must be filed 'not later than fourteen days' was treated as equivalent to a period prescribed within the meaning of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The object of that provision is to permit an act which could not be done on a day when the office was closed to be done on the next day when the office reopens.

Conclusion: The petition was in time and could not be rejected as barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether employees already in the candidate's regular service, who did some election work, were employed in connection with the election so as to attract Rule 118.

Analysis: Rule 118 applies only where there is employment in connection with the election for payment. Mere proof that regular employees took part in election work is not enough. If their election work is only casual and in addition to their normal duties, they do not fall within the rule. They come within the rule only if the evidence shows that they were taken out of their ordinary work and put on election work, so that the election service became part of their employment. On the facts found, the employees had long been in service, received no extra payment, and there was no finding that they had been switched from their normal work to election work. The burden of proving infringement of the rule was on the election petitioner.

Conclusion: Rule 118 was not infringed and the finding of corrupt practice based on that rule could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The election petition failed on the substantive issue, and the appellant succeeded in having the tribunal's order set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory period for doing an act in a court or office includes a case where the last day falls on a holiday, and regular employees of a candidate are not treated as having been employed in connection with an election unless the evidence shows that they were taken out of their normal duties and put on election work for payment.

---