The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications filed beyond the statutory limitation period as prescribed by Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in W.P(L) No. 1299 of 2023, whereby the writ application filed by the respondent was allowed and Industrial Award dated 10.09.2022 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro in I.D Case No. 01 of 2017, was set aside treating it to be beyond jurisdiction.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the Respondent- Company dismissed the appellant from services of the Company with effect from 25.02.2013 vide letter dated 20.02.2013. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro under Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010 on 12.04.2017 i.e., after a gap of more than 4 years.

3. Before the Labour Court, the Respondent-Company took a specific plea in its written statement that the application filed by the applicant-appellant is not maintainable as the same has been filed beyond the period of 3 years from the date of dismissal of the appellant; however the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court failed to frame any issue with regard to maintainability of the application filed by the appellant nor dealt with the said pleading under Section 2A(2) of the Act and finally allowed the application of this appellant by directing the Respondent-Company to reinstate the appellant-workman with continuity in service and 30% of the total back wages from the date of his dismissal till his reinstatement.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge has not taken note of the fact that in several rulings, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when a reference was made under Section 10(1)(C) of the I.D. Act, the reference should not be questioned by the Labour Court on the ground of delay alone.

In support of his argument, learned counsel referred to the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in (2014) 10 SCC 301 . He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. The Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara & another passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 801 of 2014 dated 27.08.2015. He also referred to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh v. G.M., Instrument Design Development & facilities Centre & Anr. reported in 2011 LAB I.C 645 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that reference has to be made if the dispute exists at the time of making reference.

He contended that the learned writ court has failed to consider the fact that there is a Limitation Act which is applicable in each and every law and learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has taken into consideration the entire judgments and also the law of limitation and allowed the application of the appellant filed under Section 2A(2) of I.D. Act.

5. In crux, learned counsel for the appellant tried to impress this Court by his submission that when the Labour Court has already entertained the application filed by the appellant and directed the Management to reinstate him in service with 30% of total back wages taking into consideration that the Union has approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro regarding illegal dismissal of the appellant and in pursuant to that Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro has issued a notice to the Respondent-Company and the said conciliation proceeding was pending before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro. However, a letter was issued to him to approach the Labour Court as the conciliation has failed.

Therefore, learned Writ Court should have considered the entire facts and the judgments cited at bar by the appellant that in the case of reference no limitation has been prescribed and reference has to be made if the dispute exists at the time of making reference.

6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondent- Company submits that n