Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Abdul Waheed, S/o. Abdul Hameed – Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer, Savan Bhado Project, Block Kota Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. These writ petitions were filed from different awards but raising common question of law. The services of the petitioners of both the writ petitions were terminated on 17.08.1988 by the respondents. Thus they are decided with a common order.
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14885/2022 is filed by petitioner Abdul Waheed aggrieved from award dated 26.02.2019 in LCA Case No. 448/2001 on a reference dated 05.07.2001 sent by the Labour Department under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Labour Court has rejected the claim on the ground of delay as the dispute was raised after eight years of termination. The prayer of the writ petition is reproduced as under:-
"I. That by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction be quashed and set aside the award dated 26-02-2019(Annexure-19).
II. The respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in role of service of Welder as he was working earlier under the employment of the respondent.
III. That respondent may be directed to pay all the back wages and benefits of the service as prescribed by the law.
IV. Any other direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioners
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
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 ....
The existence of industrial dispute is essential for making a reference, and mere delay in raising the dispute cannot be a ground for refusing to make a reference. The government's opinion about the ....
A stale industrial dispute cannot be maintained; the workman must demonstrate that the dispute remains alive despite delays, as established in Prabhakar v. Joint Director.
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
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....
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
