The claim for unpaid wages was barred by limitation, reinforcing the principle that courts must examine jurisdictional issues of limitation irrespective of whether they were raised by the parties.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Present petitioner has been filed challenging the order dated May 28, 2022 passed by Learned Chief Judge, Presidency, Small Cause Court, Kolkata WBSC in Appeal 606 of 2018. Shorn of the details, opposite party was appointed as General Manager by the petitioner on a consolidated fee of Rs. 1,11,110/- per month vide an appointment letter dated September 1, 2011. The services of the opposite party was terminated by the petitioner as communicated vide an email dated November 26, 2012. The petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, Sixth Church Lane on June 19, 2015 challenging the termination letter. The petitioner alleged that he had served a legal notice through his advocate on March 19, 2011 followed by an another Communication dated May 11, 2013, but the petitioner did not respond to them. The petitioner claimed his consolidated salary along with payment for the notice period and prayed for his dues. The opposite party claimed a sum of Rs. 6,01,125/- . The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kolkata after taking the evidence of both the parties vide order dated September 25, 2017 directed the petitioner to pay the applicant unpaid wages for the month of September, 2012, October, 2012 and November, 2012 amounting to Rs. 2,48,033/- and two months Rs. 2,22,220/- along with compensation of two times due wages as per the West Bengal Shops and Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2015 within 30 days of the receipt.

2. The order of the referee under the Shop and Establishment Act, 1963/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kolkata was challenged by way of an appeal filed under Section 14 (6) of the WEST BENGAL SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT ACT , 1964. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Chief Judge, Presidency, Small Cause Court vide detailed order dated May 28, 2022.

3. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the opposite party before the referee under Section 14 (2) itself was not maintainable having been barred by limitation.

4. Learned counsel submitted that under Section 14 of the WEST BENGAL SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT ACT , 1963 the application can be filed for unpaid wages within a period of six months from the date on which the wages were to be paid in terms of Section 14 Sub-Section (1) of the WEST BENGAL SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT ACT . Learned counsel submitted that such an application can be admitted even after period of six months, if the applicant satisfies the officer or authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the plea of limitation was not taken before the referee and the Appellate Court. However, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has taken this plea as one of the grounds in the petition filed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a matter of record that the petitioner was terminated as communicated by the e-mail Dated November, 2012 and the application was moved before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on June 19, 2015 i.e. after lapse of more than two and a half years. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on the record to suggest that any application was moved for condonation of delay or the delay was condoned by the referee. Learned counsel submitted that Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that even if the opposite party has n