AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The petitioner was ap-pointed as Inspector/Munshi in the office of respondent No. 3 on 28th Sept, 1981. His services were terminated on 13.4.1987. He issued a demand notice on 23.6.1996. The matter was referred to Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its award dated 20.5,1998, copy annexure P/4 declined to grant the relief to the petitioner saying that demand notice is time barred,
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner has submitted many representations against the order of termination of his services and he has also submitted the claim statement. Claim statement is at Annexure P/1 and pleadings regarding the representations is in paragraph 6. In reply to claim statement, copy of which is attached as Annexure P/2, in para No. 6 of the reply it has been stated that the contents are wrong and denied, and representations are not maintainable in the eye of law. It is not specifically denied that the representations are time barred.
In the case of AJaib Singh v. The Sirhind Cooperative Marketing Processing Services Society Limited and others JT 1993(3) S.C. 38 it has been held that no plea regarding delay was taken by the management before the Labour Court at the earlier stage, and High Court was not justified in holding that the workman has not given any explanation as to why demand notice had been issued after a long period. The Supreme Court has taken view in the case of The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, that a stale dispute cannot be referred to the Labour Court. In the case of Sur-jit Singh v. Presiding Officer and others 2001(2) SCT6497(P & H)(DB) : C.W.P. No. 9580 of 1999 decided on 31.10.2000, Division Bench of this Court in which I was the member had laid down the following points for consideration :-
No limitation is prescribed under the Act.
If plea of delay is not taken the delay may not be considered.
If plea of delay is taken, it should be considered.
If a dispute has become stale, it should not be revived after a lapse of long period if the plea regarding delay has been taken. Considering the above judgment, the award of the Labour Court is prima facie wrong and the same deserve to be set aside.
The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Labour Court for taking decision in accordance with law.
Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 27.2.2001.
Order accordingly.