A claim for overtime and leave wages filed after a 20-year delay is barred by laches, as the lapse of time precludes the effective adjudication of evidence, notwithstanding the beneficial nature of the labor legislation.

PRAYER

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the Honourable Labour Court of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in C.P.No. 225 of 2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the arrears amount along with outstanding benefits with 18% compound interest.

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, dated 03.02.2023, made in C.P.No.225 of 2021.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner served the respondent-management as a Tea Estate Supervisor and Store Assistant with effect from 27.09.1979. After putting in 23 years of service, the petitioner resigned from service with effect from 25.08.2001. The respondents are defaulters with regard to the question of payment of wages etc., Since there was huge default with reference to the particular plantation industry and there were suicidal deaths, the matter was taken up by way of a public interest litigation in W.P.(C)No.365 of 2006 before the Honourable Supreme Court of India and by an order dated 04.04.2018, the Honourable Supreme Court of India directed the State of Tamil Nadu to pay the dues of the employees on behalf of the Tea Plantation Companies mentioned therein as defaulters and thereafter, to recover the same from the said companies.

3. The Honourable Supreme Court of India also appointed the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Amitava Roy, a Retired Judge of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as One Man Committee and the workers were directed to approach the One Man Committee for settlement of the dues. Since the One Man Committee was disbursing the dues, as per the respective awards the workmen were possessing, the petitioner, therefore, thought it fit to approach the Labour Court by way of filing a petition under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. The claim of the workman is that overtime wages for the period from 01.11.1997 to 02.07.2001, amounting to a sum of Rs.12,775/- was not paid to him. The earned leave salary and wages for the mandatory one-day holiday during the period from 1997 to 2001 were never paid and that works out to Rs.14,555/-. For the month of August 2001 also the workman was not paid the salary of Rs.2,555/-. In all, the petition was filed to compute the benefits of Rs.29,885/- and order the management to pay the same along with further interest thereon.

5. The claim petition was resisted and taken up for enquiry. On behalf of the workman, he examined himself as WW-1 and Ex.W1 to Ex.W8 were marked. On behalf the management, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. The Labour Court considered the case of the workman and firstly, held against the workman on the ground that when the cause of action arose for the petitioner in the year 2001 and subsequently, in the year 2006, the petitioner did not file any claim at the relevant point of time. However, he has joined the service of the judiciary in the year 2001 and subsequently, retired from the same and thereafter, he has filed the computation petition belatedly in the year 2021 and as such, the Labour Court held that the claim was barred by undue delay and laches. Secondly, the Labour Court also considered the defence of the management that the petitioner did not hand over the key of the quarters for all these years and held that if the rent has to be calcul