Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not mandate a separate formal application for condonation of delay; providing sufficient reasons for delay within the main application is adequate for the authority to exercise its discretion to entertain the claim.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE DLC IN CR 17-68/2012-13 AND CR 3-13/2014-15 PASSED BY DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, B'LORE DIVISION;QUASH THE ORDER DTD 3.12.2018 AT ANNEXURE-Z, PASSED BY R-51 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17TH MARCH 2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV ORDER

The petitioner-Company has assailed the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner of Bangalore, Region No.II.

2. In terms of the said Order, the Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act of 1947') has condoned the delay in filing the application under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947.

3. Respondents No.1 to 48 the former employees of the petitioner made a claim under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 for payment of pension, in terms of the settlement between the petitioner and the workers’ Union of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the application under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947, is time barred. The authority after recording the evidence of the parties on the issue relating to the limitation, has condoned the delay. Said order is under challenge.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that, the contesting respondents were former employees of petitioner - Company. It is urged that, a claim under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947, has to be within one year from the date when the money is due. In case, the application under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 is filed beyond one year from the due date, then there has to be an application for condoning the delay and application must disclose sufficient cause for not making the claim within a year from the due date.

6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, no application is filed to condone the delay and that being the position, would urge that the order has to be set aside in limine.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would urge that, there is a sound logic in fixing time limit of 1 year to file an application under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947, as the employer is not expected to retain the records of the workmen beyond a certain period. And if a belated claim is made after an unreasonably long period, the employer will not be in a position to furnish the records relating to the defence raised.

8. Learned Senior Counsel would also invite attention of the Court to the Order dated 31.10.2014 passed in W.P.No.49396/2014 and W.P.No.50535-50596/2014. Said Writ Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner.

9. In terms of the said order dated 31.10.2014, Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. The relevant paragraphs of the order in the aforementioned Writ Petitions emphasised by the learned Senior counsel are as under:

"3. If regard is had to the said provision of law, it is needless to state that the 67threspondent was required to examine whether the applications filed by respondents 1 to 66 were in accordance with law and within the time prescribed by the statute and if not whether applications were filed for condonation of delay and if not pass orders in accordance with l