Back
PANKAJ BHATIA
Prem Sagar Vishwakarma – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Bhatia, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned ASG assisted by Sri Anand Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was dismissed as being time barred.
3. On perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the Industrial Tribunal while rejecting the application relied upon the provisions of Section 2A as contained in the Act and introduced by virtue of Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010.
4. On perusal of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 being Act No.24 of 2010, which came into effect on 15.09.2010, Section 2A was amended providing limitation for moving an application. A period of three years was prescribed for filing an appropriate application.
5. As the application filed by the petitioner was beyond period of three years, the impugned order came to be passed dismissing the application on the ground that the same wa
The repeal of Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act removed the limitation for filing applications for redressal, allowing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal without restriction.
The repeal of Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act allows claims previously barred by limitation to be maintainable, enabling redressal of grievances post-repeal.
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....
Non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 renders the dismissal order void and inoperative, and the employer is bound to treat the employee ....
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
The court affirmed that dismissal without approval under Section 33(2)(b) is inoperative, and the employee is deemed to continue in service until approval is granted.
Section 2-A of Act reads as dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.
The deeming fiction of permission for retrenchment under Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the availability of an effective alternative remedy for the appellant under the Act.
Point of Law- Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time ....
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
