( 1 ) FACING difficulty and hindrance with the pronouncement of law in the case of Narayan singh v. M. P. E. B. 2002-IV-LLJ (Suppl)-1330 (NOC) : 2002 (3) MPLJ 571 wherein it was held that if an employee seeks relief by preferring an application under Sections 31 (3), 61 and 62 of Madhya Pradesh Industrial relations Act, 1960 (MPIR Act) after the expiration of the statutory time limit provided under the said Act, the said application could not be entertained inasmuch as the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to original proceedings in view of the law stated in the case of Vijay Singh v. Shyam Lal, 2000 (2) MPLJ 131, the learned single Judge thought it appropriate to recommend the matter to be placed before a larger Bench of the law enunciated by the Full bench in the case of Nihalkaran v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bhopal, 1987 mplj 562 and Somsingh Onkarsingh v. M. P. S. R. T. C. , Bhopal and others, 1980 MPLJ 211 and further the MPIR Act being a beneficial statute enacted with a view to ensure social and welfare security had intentionally not expressly excluded the provisions of the limitation Act. In this factual backdrop the matter has been placed before us.

( 2 ) BEFORE we proceed to set out the facts, we think it condign to reproduce the question framed by the learned single Judge to be answered by the Full Bench:"whether in view of Section 29 (2) of limitation Act, 1963 provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to an application filed under Section 62 (1) of mpir Act, 1960 ?"

( 3 ) PRESENTLY, we shall proceed to state the facts in brief so that a clear picture can be frescoed under what circumstances the aforesaid question has emerged. The petitioner was in the employment as Medical Attendant at habibganj Hospital in the year 1972. He due to his illness went on leave and after he returned to duty, he was slapped with an order of termination. Being aggrieved, he knocked at the doors of the Labour Court by preferring an application under Section 31 (3) of the MPIR act. Many a contention was raised questioning the sustainability of the termination which need not be stated in praesenti. A written statement was filed by the Management contending inter alia that the petition filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. The Labour Court framed many issues including an issue pertaining to limitation. He recorded a finding that the application was barred by limitation. Though the Labour Court recorded such a finding, yet it issued a direction that the workman petitioner be considered for re-employment by the management in respect of the future vacancy. The presentableness of the aforesaid order was assailed in an appeal preferred by the management respondent No. 1 hereinbefore the Industrial Court which set aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and directed the matter to be decided after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. After the matter was remitted, the labour Court came to hold that it had power to condone the delay and accordingly condoned the delay and decided the controversy in favour of the petitioner and directed reinstatement in service without back wages. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, both the parties preferred appeals. The Appellate Authority by order dated June 27, 2002, Annexure P-5 set aside the order of the Labour Court and allowed the appeal preferred by the Management on the foundation that the application was barred by time and provisions of Section 5 of the limitation Act was not applicable to such an application.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by such an order, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition. In this backdrop as has been indicated hereinbefore, the learned single Judge was required to answer the issue whether the Labour Court has power to condone the delay under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 or not.

( 5 ) TO clear the initial maze whether the labour Court is a Cou