IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Pitamber Lal – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another - Respondents
CWP No. 3746 of 2023
Decided on : 03-01-2024
Industrial Disputes Act - Time Barred Claim Petition - The court dismissed the claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as time barred, as the petitioner filed the application beyond the three-year period from the date of termination.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which dismissed the claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as time barred, as the petitioner filed the application beyond the three-year period from the date of termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner did not file the claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, within the three-year period from the date of termination.
Issues: The issue revolved around the timeliness of the claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the petitioner filed the application within the prescribed three-year period from the date of termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and emphasized that the workman must file the application within three years from the date of termination, without any saving for time spent pursuing the matter before the Conciliation Officer.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the claim petition of the petitioner was deemed time barred as it was filed beyond the three-year period from the date of termination.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, in Industrial Dispute No. 142 of 2014, titled as Pitamber Lal vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another, in terms whereof the claim petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been dismissed being time barred.
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents and having carefully perused the award passed by learned Tribunal, this Court does not finds any infirmity therein.
3. It is a matter of record that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 31.12.2011, which termination was challenged by the petitioner, by filing a claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the learned Tribunal on 26.03.2015. Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, enables a workman to approach the learned Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, for adjudication of a dispute pertaining to the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of his services notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, after satisfying the requirements as are contemplated in sub-Section (2) thereof.
4. Sub-section (3) of Section 2-A further provides that the application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).
5. As mentioned hereinabove, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 31.12.2011 and he preferred an application envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on 26.03.2015. This was beyond the period of three years as from the date of his termination. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner raised his grievance with the concerned Labour Officer well within the period of three years, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner for the reason that the language used in sub-section (3) of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is clear and unambiguous that the workman has to file the application within a period of three years from the date of termination and there is no saving provided in sub- section (3) for any time period spent while pursuing the matter before Conciliation Officer etc. In fact, sub-section (2) of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act otherwise provides that in case a workman wants to invoke the provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, then he can do so only after expiry of 45 days from the date he makes application to the Conciliation Officer of the Appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute. Thus, the statutory scheme itself is to the effect that after the termination of services of a workman, firstly he has to make an application to the Conciliation Officer of the Appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute and after expiry of 45 days thereof, he can directly approach the Labour Court but such claim has to be made by the workman within three years as from the date of termination.
6. Therefore, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the award passed by learned Labour Court, in terms whereof the claim petition of the petitioner has been dismissed being time barred because admittedly the petitioner did not file the claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court within the period of three years as from the date of his termination, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
The main legal point established is that under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a workman must file the claim petition within three years from the date of termination, without any sa....
The Labour Court cannot entertain applications under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 beyond the three-year limitation period from the date of dismissal, as this limitation is mandator....
Section 2-A of Act reads as dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.
Labour dispute claims barred by limitation under Section 2A(3) ID Act and laches after 15-year delay from termination.
Significant delay in raising an industrial dispute is fatal to the workman, justifying dismissal of claims under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Delay in raising an industrial dispute can bar the claim, and temporary employees have no right to regularization outside constitutional provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.