The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

WP No. 21152 of 2016

(KALURAM JATAV Vs PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT AND OTHERS)

Jabalpur, Dated : 11-01-2022

Heard through Video Conferencing.

Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri V. S. Choudhary, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

11. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging award dated 26.7.2016

passed in Case No. 39/IDR/09 by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jabalpur

(M.P.).

2.

2. Presiding Officer Labour Court had dismissed the claim of workman and

answered reference made to it in negative. It was held that workman failed

to prove that he worked 240 days continuously in calendar year, therefore, he

will not fall within the definition of Permanent Employee under Section 25 (B)

of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and therefore, it cannot be said that any

violation of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act. Labour Court held that

workman raised a dispute after delay of 16 years and Apex Court in the case

o f Nandu Gadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P.Madhwan Kutti -(2000) 2 SCC

Nandu Gadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P.Madhwan Kutti -(2000) 2 SCC

455

455 had found delay of 6 years to fatal to the case of workman.

3.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that no

limitation is prescribed for raising a dispute before Industrial Tribunal and,

therefore, Labour Court, Jabalpur committed an error of law in dismissing the

claim of petitioner. It is also submitted by him that workman had shown that

he had worked 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, Labour Court ought

to have allowed reference in favour of workman.

44. Record has been received from the Labour Court. Management had filed its

reply and had denied that workman was ever engaged by the Management

between 1.1.1990 to 26.8.1992. No records are available showing workman to

be engaged by the Management. Since workman was never engaged by

Management, therefore, there is no question of violation of Section 25(F) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

1

Digitally signed by

ARVIND KUMAR

DUBEY

Date: 2022.01.19

14:45:15 IST

SAN

Signature Not

Verified

6.

6. Apex Court in the case of Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka

Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka

Vs. Shivalinga-MANU/SC/2098/2001

Vs. Shivalinga-MANU/SC/2098/2001 held as under:-

“6. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly relied on

the reasoning of the Labour Court and contended that the

view of High Court would not advance the cause of

justice. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon two

decisions of this court in Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Hindu

Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Service Society

Ltd. and another-1990 9AIR SCW 1051 and Sapan

Kumar Pandit Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity

Board- 2001 (6) SCC 222 to contend that there is no

period of limitation prescribed under the Industrial

Disputes Act, to raise the dispute and it is open to a party

to approach the Court even belatedly and the Labour

Court or the Industrial Tribunal can properly mould the

relief by refusing or awarding part payment of back

wages. It is no doubt true that in appropriate cases, as

held by this court in aforesaid two decisions, such steps

could be taken by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal,

as the case may be, where there is no such dispute as to

relationship between the parties as employer and

employee. In cases, where there is a serious dispute or

doubt in such relationship and records of employer

become relevant, the long delay would come in the way of

maintenance of the same. In such circumstances to make

them available to Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal

to adjudicate the dispute appropriately will be impossible.

A situation of that nature would render the claim to have

become stale. That is exactly the situation arising in this

case. In that view of the matter, we think two decisions are

relied upon by learned counsel, have no a