The High Court dismissed a writ petition against a Labour Court award holding a respondent entitled to relief after a 12-year delay. The Court held Article 137 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable to Industrial Disputes references. Finding no back-wages awarded and insufficient reason for delay, interference was refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPL No.5769 of 2011
----Petitioners
Versus
Raghunandan Yadav, S/o Shri Chhedilal Yadav, R/o Bajrang Mohalla, Village & Post Sakri, District Bilaspur (CG)
---- Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioners : Mr.R.N.Pusty, Govt.Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Vinod Deshmukh and Mr.K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
30/07/2018
2
30.6.1996 and the matter was referred to the appropriate Government on 3.12.2008 and no explanation was offered by the respondent/workman, as such, the matter deserves to be remitted to the Labour Court for considering afresh in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajab Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society
Limited and another 1.
“ 2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute .-(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such
1 (1999) 6 SCC 82
3
discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in subsection (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal or adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of fortyfive days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.
(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).”
Sd/-
(Sanjay K.Agrawal)
Judge
B/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a delay of 12 years in filing an industrial dispute makes the application invalid due to limitation.
Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajab Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society LimitedReferred¶2
Ajab Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh
Raghunandan Yadav
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
