Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K.Thakker
Raghuvirsinh Harisinh Jadeja – Appellant
Versus
Chief Officer Morbi Nagar Palika – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. K. Thakker, J.
1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCR) No.43 of 2016 rejecting the reference filed by the present petitioner on the ground of delay.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the Post of Clerk on 16.11.1996 and his service was terminated on 22.07.1998. As per the claim of the petitioner that at the time of termination of service, dispute seeking relief of regularization was pending, however, without seeking any approval from the respondent, had put to an end the service of the petitioner, without following the mandatory provision of Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Challenging the order of termination passed in the year 1998, the reference came to be filed in the year 2006, which was registered as a reference LCR No.43 of 2006, petitioner had adduced the documentary evidence on record in the nature of demand notice, the press note suggesting the vacant post and the muster roll etc. As against the same, respondent has also produced the documentary evidence in addition to the evidence
Industrial disputes must be referred to the tribunal within a reasonable time; excessive delay may render claims stale and prejudicial to the employer's operations.
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
Delay in raising an industrial dispute can bar the claim, and temporary employees have no right to regularization outside constitutional provisions.
Delay in filing a reference does not preclude adjudication on merits, especially when the dispute remains alive.
Section 10 reads as reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
The court emphasized the importance of timely raising of disputes and the applicability of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in cases of delay.
The court emphasized that mere assertions of rights do not justify delay in legal proceedings unless supported by substantial reasons, enforcing adherence to limitation principles.
The court established that delays in raising industrial disputes do not negate the existence of the dispute, and the expansive definition of retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act protects ev....
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
