Labour dispute claims barred by limitation under Section 2A(3) ID Act and laches after 15-year delay from termination.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to have been employed with the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. (‘the Company’) since 2005. According to the petitioner, he was promoted as Branch Manager of the Company under the Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram. While discharging his duties in connection with the establishment of a new Branch, he was terminated from service on 11-03-2009 through an order issued by the Head of Human Resources. It is contended that, though designated as Manager, his duties were supervisory and clerical in nature, and therefore he qualifies as a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the '1947 Act').

2. According to the petitioner, he initiated proceedings for conciliation before the State Authorities in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, as the authorities entertained a doubt regarding the office under which the petitioner was employed. The petitioner states that the dispute was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, Kollam, through proceedings of the Government of Kerala. The petitioner further contends that I.D No.31 of 2024 on the file of the Labour Court, Kollam, was not proceeded with, as the Labour Court took the view that, since the employer was an Insurance Company, the appropriate Government under the provisions of the 1947 Act is the Central Government. In other words, the reference of the dispute by the Government of Kerala was found to be invalid.

3. The petitioner contends that he thereafter approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for conciliation. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conciliation officer issued a certificate under Section 2A(2) of the 1947 Act, enabling the petitioner to directly approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The petitioner is before this Court apprehending that such an application may be treated as time-barred, as more than three years have elapsed. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P8 representation before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) may be directed to be disposed of. The prayer in Ext.P8 is to cause reference of the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in terms of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the 1947 Act.

4. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 3, 4 and 5 would point out that the claim of the petitioner is hopelessly barred. It is submitted that, admittedly, the petitioner was terminated from service in the year 2009, and for the first time, he raised a claim for adjudication of the disputes only in the year 2024. It is submitted that no explanation has been offered for the long delay, and any rights the petitioner may have had have been extinguished due to the inordinate delay in seeking a reference.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 3, 4 and 5, I am of the view that this writ petition has to be dismissed in limine. Admittedly, the petitioner was terminated from the services of the 1^st respondent in the year 2009. There is nothing on record to indicate that at any time before the year 2024, the petitioner had raised any claim for adjudication of the dispute relating to his termination. Further, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) had issued a certificate in terms of the provisions contained in Section 2A(2) of the 1947 Act. The petitioner has no case that even after issuance of such a certificate, he had filed any application directly to the Labour Court in terms of the pro