Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, P.L.N.SHARMA, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Nalgonda Co-operative Marketing society Limited - Appellant
Versus
Labour Court, Hyd, rep., by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03-18-93
LABOUR COURT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1966 - SECTION 41(3) - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 5 - APPLICABILITY - SECOND APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY - POWER OF LABOUR COURT - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant herein filed a second appeal before the Labour Court, Hyderabad under Section 41(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 against an order of termination dated July 5, 1984. The Labour Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay of seven days in filing the second appeal, holding that there was neither a provision in the Act conferring power on the second appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the Second Appeal, nor was section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and designated as the second appellate authority under Section 41(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 is not a Civil Court. The appeal preferred to it is under a special Act and not under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to an application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 29(2) of the Act are applicable to an appeal or an application filed before the Labour court constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and designated as the second appellate authority under Section 41(3) of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 5 read with Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to an appeal or an application filed before the Labour court constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and designated as the second appellate authority under Section 41 (3) of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966. 2. The provisions of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with article 137 in the schedule to the Act, make Section 5 of the Act applicable to an appeal or application filed under any special or local law in a Civil or Criminal court in so far as and to the extent to which Section 5 is not expressly excluded and they have no application to an appeal or application filed under any special or local law before a Tribunal which is not such a Court.
Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 2 ) BEFORE we consider the aforesaid questions, it would be apposite to refer- to the relevant facts of the case, no other questions than those referred to above arise for consideration in the writ appeal and therefore it can be disposed of on the basis of the answers to the questions referred to the Full Bench for decision.
( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of termination dated July 5, 1984, Sri k, Sriramakrishnaiah, the 3rd respondent herein, filed an appeal under Section 41 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act No. 15 of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Authority constituted under the act, the 2nd respondent herein. The appeal was allowed and the order of termination was set aside with a direction to reinstate the employee "with all back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits" by an order dated april 29,1985. Against such an order, second Appeal lies to the Labour Court under Section 41 (3) of the Act. The period of limitation prescribed under the provision for filing the second appeal is thirty days from the date of communication of the decision. As the appeal was preferred beyond the period of limitation of thirty days, the appellant herein filed I. A. No. 298 of 1985 on the file of the Labour Court, Hyderabad for condoning the delay of seven days in filing the second appeal. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court dismissed the application by his order dated February 28,1986 holding that there was neither a provision in the Act conferring power on the second appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the Second Appeal, nor was section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings. Challenging the validity of this order, Writ Petition No. 4087 of 1986 on the file of this Court had been filed. The learned Judge Dismissed the writ petition on April 14, 1986 holding that the Labour Court, which had been constituted as the Second appellate Authority under the Act, had no power to condone the delay in filing the Second Appeal. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ appeal has been preferred.
( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the contesting parties, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of Act No. 15 of 1966. Though this Act has been repealed by the Andhra Pradesh Shops and establishments Act No. 20 of 1988, it is not necessary to refer to the provisions of the repealing Act as it has no application in the instant case. Section 41 of Act no. 15 of 1966 reads as follows: "41. Appointment of authority to hear and decide appeals a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
