Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Balwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in filing appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge against punishment upheld by labour court. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellant's arguments concerning unfair punishment. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. delay in reference negatively impacts industrial peace. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. appeal dismissed; learned single judge's decision affirmed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
G.S.Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) - CM-2296-LPA-2022
By this application, the applicant-appellant seeks condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant, the application is allowed and the nominal delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-953-2022
4. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP-19221-2022, decided on 30.08.2022, wherein the Award dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh was upheld.
5. The appellant-workman was aggrieved against the punishment which had been imposed upon him, i.e. stoppage of 10 increments with cumulative
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 ....
Breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act fell flat as none of petitioners-workmen could establish before Labour Court that they had completed 240 days of continuous service ....
The court emphasized the necessity of timely appeals and rejected the appellant's request for condonation of a 626-day delay due to lack of valid justification.
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....
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 pursue industrial disputes within a reasonable time; undue delay without satisfactory explanation can render the dispute non-existent, as established in Supreme Court precedents.
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
Principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases....
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
