While the Limitation Act does not strictly apply to industrial disputes, courts discourage over-stale claims that lack satisfactory explanation for prolonged delay, as such claims disrupt industrial peace and negatively impact the financial stability of employers.

Judgment

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 27/04/2026

DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 27/04/2026

FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : FULL ORDER

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/05/2026

1) The present writ petition has been directed against the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Kota (Rajasthan) in Case No. LC 20/2007 (CIS No. 277/2014), whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking salary for the period from 08.07.1987 to 31.05.2005 with interest, was allowed.

2) The present writ petition has been filed by the employer who was non-applicant before the Labour Court. The respondent herein was the applicant before the Labour Court. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties, as referred before the Labour Court, are maintained.

3) The brief facts of the case disclose that the applicant initially raised an industrial dispute challenging the dismissal order dated 01.01.1987. The proceedings were taken up before the Conciliation Officer prior to the matter being referred to the Tribunal/Court. During the conciliation proceedings, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and the same was reduced into writing. As per the terms of the settlement, the non-applicant agreed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Peon/Beldar by 10.07.1987. It was further agreed between the parties that the applicant would not be entitled to any salary for the intervening period between the date of dismissal and the date of reinstatement; however, his services would be treated as being in continuous service. The settlement was executed on 27.06.1987.

4) The case set up by the applicant is that in terms of the settlement, he approached the non-applicant to resume his duties on 08.07.1987; however, the non-applicant did not permit him to join the employment. Thereafter also, he submitted three applications expressing his willingness to join the employment, but the same were not accepted. He further submitted an application to the Additional Secretary, Labour Department, yet he was still not allowed to join the employment. In such circumstances, the applicant filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) on 09.05.2007, claiming wages for the period from the date he reported for duty till the date of his superannuation, i.e. from 08.07.1987 to 31.05.2005. The said claim of the applicant was allowed by the Labour Court vide order dated 04.12.2024, whereby wages amounting to Rs. 2,05,483/- were awarded. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed by the non-applicant.

5) Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

6) The principal contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant are that the claim of the applicant suffers from delay and laches, and therefore, such an over-stale claim deserves to be rejected. However, the Labour Court failed to consider the said aspect while granting relief to the applicant. It is further contended that despite having entered into a settlement, the applicant did not rejoin the employment, and therefore, it is a case of abandonment of service. This aspect was also not considered by the Labour Court.

7) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the law of limitation