Delay cannot be condoned as per Limitation Act if Special Act prescribes different limitation period: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently touched upon the scope of application of the Limitation Act, 1963 in cases where a special Act expressly prescribes a different limitation period. [The Secretary, Sree Avittom Thirunal Hospital v State of Kerala & Ors.].The Court effectively observed that the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to extend the limitation period for cases falling under a special Act where such an Act prescribes a different limitation period, thereby impliedly excluding the application of the Limitation Act..“As per the provisions of sub Section 2 of Section 29 of the (Limitation) Act where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule," Justice Amit Rawal held..Referring to Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, the Court also pointed out that, in such cases falling under special laws, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall only apply to the extent that a special or local Act does not expressly exclude it. Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act deal with the limitation period applicable to various kinds of cases and how the same is to be calculated..The Court was considering a writ petition challenging the order of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kollam in a dispute falling under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Gratuity Act). .The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner along with an application to condone a delay of one year.The Commissioner had rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. It may be noted that the Gratuity Act prescribes a limitation period of 60 days, extendable by another 60 days if there are sufficient reasons for the delay. The High Court was called to consider whether, in addition to this period of limitation under the Gratuity Act (60+60 days), the petitioner could avail the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 enables courts to admit cases even after a prescribed limitation period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.After examining the relevant provisions and various precedents, the High Court concluded that this provision could not be invoked by the petitioner in this case to extend the limitation period applicable to the gratuity dispute at hand. The Court observed that in expressly prescribing a 60+60 limitation period for filing appeals in gratuity disputes, the Gratuity Act, under Section 7(7), had excluded the application of the Limitation Act. “On plain and simple reading of the aforementioned provisions, it is evident that the legislature while enacting sub-Section 7 of Section 7 specifically excluded the application of limitation Act by providing the limitation of appeal for a period of 60+60 days. Otherwise, the limitation to file an appeal under the schedule of the limitation Act is thirty (30) days. Thus for all intends and purposes, there cannot be any condonation of delay by taking the aid of the aforementioned provisions by entertaining an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act," the Court concluded. .Therefore, the Court proceeded to dismiss the petition. The petitioner was represented by advocate RS Sarat. The respondents were represented by advocates B Ananthu and Sunil Kumar Kuriakose..[Read Judgment]