Employee's health issues no excuse for appeal delay, Tribunal rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals seeking condonation of delay in filing due to an employee's ill-health causing negligence. The Tribunal found that delegating the responsibility of filing the appeal to the employee, who failed to act timely due to her health issues, was not justified. Inconsistencies in the employee's affidavits and reliance on previous Tribunal decisions further weakened the applicant's case. The Tribunal held that negligence of an employee is not a valid reason for failing to file an appeal within the normal period, leading to the rejection of the condonation applications and dismissal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeals due to employee's ill-health causing negligence.

Summary:
The applicant filed applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals of 171 days, citing the ill-health of an employee as the reason for the delay. The employee, Mrs. Sarika B. Nikam, had gynaecological complications and was on bed rest, leading to the delay in filing the appeals. The applicant claimed there was no negligence or inaction on their part.

The Revenue argued that the negligence of the employee cannot be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. They pointed out inconsistencies in Mrs. Sarika Nikam's affidavits regarding her health and attendance at the office. The Revenue relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support their argument.

After considering both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission. It was noted that the responsibility of filing the appeal was delegated to Mrs. Sarika B. Nikam, who failed to act timely due to her ill-health. The Tribunal emphasized that a Senior Manager cannot shift the responsibility to an assistant, especially when the manager himself appeared before the lower authorities. Inconsistencies in Mrs. Sarika B. Nikam's affidavits further weakened the applicant's case. Citing previous Tribunal rulings, the Tribunal held that negligence of an employee is not a valid reason for not filing an appeal within the normal period of limitation. The lack of transparency and incorrect submissions in the condonation application led to the rejection of the applications for condonation of delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals.

---