the respondent/worker was appointed as Conductor on 26.02.1990 and he was regularized with effect from 01.01.1991. Since he was unauthorisedly absent for 88 days, i.e. from 21.04.1995 to 17.07.1995, a charge memo was issued as against him. However, the respondent has not given any reply to the charge memo. Thereafter, an enquiry notice was sent to the respondent and the same was also returned as “he left India”. Therefore, an ex parte enquiry was conducted. Based on the finding of the enquiry officer, the respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 18.01.1996. As against the order of dismissal, an industrial dispute was raised in the year 2013, ie. after 16 years. The learned counsel, by referring to the limitation as prescribed under Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, submits that the claim of the respondent/worker is barred by limitation under Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 2984.
