Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA
Baldevji Natvarji Solanki – Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Shrunjal Shah for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) 495 of 2009, whereby the Labour Court has rejected the reference of the petitioner on the ground of delay as well as failure on the part of the petitioner to prove that the petitioner has worked for 240 days in the previous year from the date of termination of the service.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1. The petitioner was working with respondent nos.1 and 2 since 05.03.1989 with monthly salary of Rs.1,550/- doing labour work of removing the testing materials in the laboratory at Changodar. During the period of his tenure, the petitioner was never issued any memo, show-cause notice or charge-sheet. The petitioner was also not provided with any document of employment i.e. identity card, attendance card, leave card or pay-slip.
3.2. During the course of employment on 02.10.1999, the petitioner was terminated without
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
It is again on issue of delay where there is no express provision for it. Whereas, in the present case, there is express provision providing limitation to prefer a Reference / claim before the Labour....
In absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner workman establishing that he had worked under the Respondent continuously for 240 days and, coupled with the fact that the industrial dispute has....
The absence of a prescribed time limit for making a reference to the Labour Court should be considered in conjunction with general principles of delay and laches, and the plea of delay, if raised by ....
An industrial dispute must be actively pursued; significant delays in raising disputes can render them non-existent, impacting the ability to seek relief.
Point of Law - There is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the “appropriate Government” to consider whether it is expedient....
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
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
