Rohit Kumar Dhrutlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:4427

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPL No. 13 of 2012

¶7

Rohit Kumar Dhrutlahre S/o Shri Chintaram Dhrutlahre, aged about 40 years R/o Parsabhata, In Front of Co-Operative Bazar Balco Korba, Distt.- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary Water Resource Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Baraj Jal Prabandh Division, Rampur, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapti, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

23.01.2025

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶18

“10.1 Hon'ble Court may Kindly be please to call the entire record from Learned Labour Court Korba in Case No.3/IDA/2008 (Ref.) Rohit Kumar Dhrutlahre V/s Executive Engineer, Hasdev Barradge Korba.

¶19

10.2 Hon'ble Court may Kindly be please to quash

¶20

-2-

¶21

the award dt. 29.01.2009 Passed by Learned Labour Court Korba in Case No. 3/IDA/2008 (Ref.).

¶22

10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to held that the termination of the Petitioner is illegal and improper. Hon'ble Court may further direct the Respondent Dept. to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages.

¶23

10.4 That the other order/relief which Hon'ble Court deem fit may be granted.

¶24

10.5 Any other order or direction may kindly be issued. ”

¶25

Brief facts of the present case are that the appropriate government referred the

¶26

industrial dispute to the presiding officer, learned Labour Court, for adjudication as to whether the application filed by the petitioner after 12 years from the date of his termination is valid and proper and he is entitled to get the relief. The learned Labour Court rejected the statement of claim of the petitioner holding it barred by limitation as it was filed 12 years after the date of termination.

¶27

Mr. Lav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶28

the petitioner was appointed as a daily rated employee to the post of helper under the respondent on 01.01.1990 and he worked till 28.02.1995 and on 01.03.1995, his services were discontinued without sufficient reason. He would contend that a dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer, thereafter; the matter was referred to the appropriate government. It is argued that the appropriate government after formulating the question for determination referred the industrial dispute to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court for adjudication. The learned Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner

¶29

-3-

¶30

only on the ground that the petitioner challenged the order discontinuation of services after a long 12 years.

¶31

Mr. Lav Sharma would further argue that the period of limitation was inserted in the Industrial Dispute Act w.e.f. 15.09.2010 and prior to that no limitation period was prescribed in the Act. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajab

¶32

Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-processing Service Society

¶33

Limited and another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 .

¶34

1. On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma and submit that the petitioner challenged the discontinuation of his services after 12 years, therefore, the learned Labour Court rightly dismissed the statement of claim filed by the petitioner. He would further submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

1. In the matter of Ajab Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶36

In this case, though the plea of limitation has been taken before the Labour Court, but the Labour Court has rightly held that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but the delay ought to have been explained by the workman as it has been explicitly raised.

¶37

-4-

¶38

The question of limitation has been inserted w.e.f. 15.9.2010 in the Industrial

¶39

Disputes Act, 1947 which provides as under:-

¶40

“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 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.

¶41

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal or adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty- five 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.

¶42

(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). ”

¶43

In the present case, though the delay has not been explained by the respondent/workman, but considering the finding that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the order/award dated 29.01.2009

¶44

-5-

¶45

pronounced on 05.12.2009 by the learned Labour Court in Case No.3/IDA/2008

¶46

(Ref.) is hereby set-aside . The matter is remitted back to the learned Labour

¶47

Court to decide it afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing of the parties.

¶48