SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(All) 786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. K. Agarwal, J.
RAM LAKHAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, VARANASI AND OTHERS - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 21649 Of 1988
Decided On : 05/20/1999

Advocates Appeared:
SAMIR SHARMA, Shesh Kumar

There is no limitation period prescribed for making or seeking reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 2A - LIMITATION - DELAY IN RAISING DISPUTE - SECTION 2A IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE AVAILED OF WHERE THE WORKMAN HAS BEEN DISMISSED FROM SERVICES PRIOR TO 1978 - HELD, NO LIMITATION IS PRESCRIBED FOR MAKING OR SEEKING REFERENCE UNDER THE ACT - SECTION 2A IS IN EFFECT A DEFINITION SECTION AND APPLIES IN RESPECT OF DISPUTE RAISED ON OR AFTER THE AFORESAID SECTION CAME IN THE STATUTE BOOK IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE WORKMAN HAS BEEN DISMISSED FROM SERVICES EARLIER.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a conductor employed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, was dismissed from service in 1975. He filed an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in 1982, seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Labour Court dismissed the application on the grounds of limitation and that Section 2A was not applicable as it came into force after the petitioner's dismissal.

Finding of the Court:

The Allahabad High Court held that there is no limitation prescribed for making or seeking reference under the Industrial Disputes Act and that Section 2A is prospective in nature and cannot be availed of where the workman has been dismissed from services prior to 1978. However, the court relied on a Supreme Court decision to hold that Section 2A applies in respect of dispute raised on or after the aforesaid section came in the statute book irrespective of the fact as to whether the workman has been dismissed from services earlier.

Issues: 1. Whether there is a limitation period for raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable to disputes arising before it came into force?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there is no limitation period prescribed for making or seeking reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The court held that Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is prospective in nature and cannot be availed of where the workman has been dismissed from services prior to 1978.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Labour Court, and directed the Labour Court to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law.

R. K. AGRAWAL, J.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16th July, 1988 passed by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court, U. P. Varanasi, respondent No. 1, contained in Annexure-17 to the writ petition, and the order dated 3rd July. 1975 passed by the Assistant Regional Manager. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, varanasi, respondent No. 4 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of conductor and to pay his salary accordingly.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was selected on the post of conductor by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). He joined his duties in May. 1974, but all of sudden, an order was passed on 3rd July, 1975, by respondent no. 4 striking off the name of the petitioner from the waiting list. The petitioner made representation to the higher authorities but of no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 17. 4. 1982, before the regional Conciliation Officer, Varanasi. He also made an application explaining the delay in making application before him. Thereafter, vide order dated 23. 5. 1985, the dispute was referred to the labour court. The labour court, order, vide dated 16th July, 1988, declined to make any award in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had raised industrial dispute after a lapse of more than 10 years which is barred by limitation. The labour court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit under Section 2a of the aforesaid Act as the said section came in the statute book in the year 1978 and it shall not apply in respect of disputes arising before the said section came into force. While holding so, the labour court relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Jagdev Pandey v. Labour Court and others, 1987 (35) FLR 421.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for respondents.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no time-limit has been provided under the aforesaid Act for making reference to the labour court for adjudication, and, therefore, the labour court was not at all justified in declining to decide the dispute on the ground of limitation. He relied upon the decision rendered in the case of the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, lucknow v. B. C. Verma and another. 1994 (68) FLR 777, wherein this Court had held that no time-limit has been provided for making reference under the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of U. P. State Electricity Board and another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, U. P. Kanpur and others. (1999) 1 UPLBEC 152, in support of his plea that even if no limitation has been prescribed for making reference in the Industrial disputes Act, the normal period of limitation of 3 years for filing the suit may be held to be applicable for raising industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The honble Supreme Court, in a recent decision rendered in the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind co-operative Marketing cum-processing Service Society Limited and another, JT 1999 (3) SC 38, has held that there is no limitation prescribed for making or seeking reference under the aforesaid Act. The Honble Supreme Court in the above case had held as under : "it follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act. 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top