THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.17685 of 2007

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to call for the records from the Respondents herein by issuing a Writ, Order of Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by quashing the order dt.6-6-2005 in M.P.No.53 of 2003 in I.D. No.3 of 1984 on the file of 1^st respondent in refusing to grant the relief as perverse, illegal, unjust, contrary to law contrary to material on record and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India ….”

2) Heard Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No.1, and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.2.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the Labour Court on erroneous view of the matter and on perverse appreciation of the facts, has denied the relief sought by the petitioner. The Labour Court ought not have denied the relief sought by the petitioner on the ground of filing of M.P.No.3 of 1997, as withdrawal of said M.P. does not operate as res judicata to compute and decide the difference of amounts claimed in M.P.No.53 of 2003. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that as long as the Award dated 04.04.1985 is not implemented and is in force, the petitioner is entitled to claim the monetary benefits under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the learned counsel prays this Court to allow the writ petition.

4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the application of the petitioner before the Labour Court was barred by limitation as the same was filed 15 years after the publication of the Award dated 04.04.1985. Earlier, the petitioner filed E.P.No.9/1996 and the same was closed by the Labour Court for non-furnishing of certain certificates. Thereafter, the petitioner kept silent nearly for two years and thereafter raised E.A. No.25/01 to re-open E.P.No.9/996. However, the same was dismissed by the Labour Court on 05.09.2002 granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that earlier the petitioner filed M.P.No.3/1997 under Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act, however, the same was dismissed as not pressed. Further, after passing of the Award dated 04.04.1985 by the Labour Court, the petitioner never filed any representation for reinstatement. Had the petitioner reinstated, he would have been paid the last drawn wages. But, he was employed somewhere else from the year 1982 and getting his pay/wages. Considering all the above facts, the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record.

6) As can be seen from the impugned order dated 06.06.2003, the Labour Court has mainly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and also for non-filing of documentary evidence in support of his claim.

7) As regards delay, the Labour Court held that 11 years after the award dated 04.04.1985, the E.P. was filed. Further, even after closure of the E.P. also, the petitioner has not immediately filed the petition under Section33-C (2) of I.D. Act. The Labour Court clearly opined that though the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the delay and laches in making claim, the same can be a ground for disallowing the claim, duly relying on certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8) In view of the above findings of the Labour Court and after this length of time, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

9) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Mis