IMPORTANT POINT
Industrial Court was right in holding that application of workmen under Section 31(3) read with 34 and 61 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 was barred by limitation of 2 years under Section 62 that Act. The cause of action was complete on 1.3.1986, it cannot be termed as recurring cause of action. The Applications were filed either on 12.4.1988 or 21.6.1988, in both cases, it is beyond two years and thus time barred. The Labour Court and High Court were wrong in their contrary views.

Headnote:Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960-Section 62-Limitation of 2 years to file an application for decision of a dispute from the date of arising of cause of action-Workers going on strike in sympathy of suspension of a co-workman Dushyant Kumar-Held illegal-Workman reported on duty on 1.3.1986-Not taken by appellant-Filed application on 12.4.1988 or 21.6.1988-Whether time barred? (Yes)-Whether a cause of action which is complete can become recurring cause of action in the present case? (No).
       Held : When the workmen themselves understood the order of the Labour Court dated 1.3.1986 as directing them to resume their duties and thereafter though they have reported for duty, they have not been allowed to join their duty, the application filed in each of these cases is beyond the period of two years mentioned in Section 62 of the Act from 1.3.1986. (Para 7)
       Now we have to see as to whether the case put forth before the courts falls under which of the clauses provided under Section 62 of the Act. The largest period of limitation prescribed therein is two years and in cases of termination of services and other incidental matters lesser period of limitation has been prescribed. Therefore, even taking that two years period from the date of the dispute either taking the date on which when they were refused work when they made a demand that they should be allowed to do work with Dushyant Kumar or when they made a demand after the order made by the Labour Court on an interim application directing them to resume work or calling off the strike, the applications filed are beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 62 of the Act. (Para 9)
       Held also : The concept of recurring cause of action arising in a matter of this nature is difficult to comprehend. (Para 10)
       In that view of the matter, we think that the High Court and the Labour Court fell into an error in analyzing and understanding the matter. In this view, we think the view taken by the Industrial Court to the extent that the cause of action had commenced at any rate on 1.3.1986 is correct. Reckoning from that date, the period of limitation of two years had been over by the time the applications were filed. (Para 11)
       Held finally : C.A.Nos. 89-90/99, C.A. Nos. 92-93/99 and C.A.Nos. 100-101/99, therefore, stand allowed and the order made by the High Court setting aside the order of the Industrial Court and restoring that of the Labour Court and the application filed by the workmen before the Labour Court, shall stand dismissed. Consequentially, C.A. Nos. 91/99 and 94-99/99 shall stand dismissed and the question of entertaining the special leave petitions or giving any reliefs in those cases will not arise in these proceedings. SLP (C) Nos. 14115/2000 and 14116/2000 shall stand disposed of as they have become unnecessary. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-Three applications under Section 31(3) read with Sections 34 and 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] were filed either on 12.4.1988 or 21.6.1988 by the workers as per the list enclosed to the applications. It is pleaded therein that the appellant is not allowing them to do their job and the same should be held to be illegal, mala fide and unjustified and direct the appellant to allow them to do their job forthwith and pay their wages for the period they were not allowed to do their duty. In the applications, it was alleged that on 22.8.1986 the appellant had filed a case [No.35/MPIR/1986] before the Labour Court, Durg praying that the strike resorted to by the workers with effect from 12.2.1986 may be held to be illegal and the workers may be directed to resume their duties. By an order made on 1.3.1986, the Labour Court directed the workmen, who were applicants in the applications, to resume their duties. However, the appellant was not allowing them to join duty though the workmen had reported for duty, and was also not paying any wages. It was alleged that the appellant had not issued charge sheet nor passed any order of termination of their services. Thus the action of the appellant in not allowing the workmen to resume their duties is wholly illegal, mala fide and unjustified, which amounts to unfair labour practice and the same is also in contravention of the Standing Orders and the Act. A written statement was filed in which preliminary objections were raised to the effect that the applications filed by the workmen are barred by limitation. It was asserted that the cause of action for the dispute, if at all, had arisen on 1.3.1986 when the Labour Court had directed the workmen not to continue the strike and to resume the work and the workmen sought to resume work but the same having been refused, an application is filed in the year 1988. The said application having been filed beyond two years from 1.3.1986 is clearly barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. On merits also, several pleas were raised with which we are not concerned for the present.

2. The appellant examined 10 witnesses to support its case. None of the workmen who were applicants before the Labour Court examined themselves. However, they examined only witness WW-1. Bhimrao Bagde whose services had been terminated long back. Evidence of non-applicant witness No. 3, Shamboo Dayal Gupta was taken note of by the Labour Court to the effect that "it is correct to say that the workmen standing outside the factory were asking to take Dushyant Kumar who had been placed under suspension from duty and only then they would come for work only along with Dushyant Kumar". The said witness also stated that the said Dushyant Kumar was found sleeping in the Mill during working hours and after issuing a charge sheet was prevented from coming to duty. The Labour Court found that on 12.2.1986 charge sheet was issued to Dushyant Kumar and was prevented from joining duty, which was the cause of dispute. For about a month from 12.2.1986, the workmen were coming daily to the factory gate shouting slogans and preventing the other workers from coming to duty. The Labour Court found that the cause of action for the dispute arose from the time a show cause notice has been issued on 12.2.1986 to a workman, namely, Dushyant Kumar, who was prevented from entering the factory under the oral orders of the Factory Manager. Thereafter, it was found that the workmen had the legal status to come to the factory and demand allowing of the said Dushyant Kumar to enter the factory and not having permitted them the cause of action for this matter arose yet again. From 12.2.1986 for about one month, the workmen had been coming daily at the factory gate and shouting slogans and had been preventing the other workmen coming for duty. Thus even as late as April, 1989 they were making ef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 516

Cases Referred (1)