AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the workman challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 4.2.1998 (Copy Annexure P/l), vide which the relief was declined to him because the reference was treated as barred by limitation. The demand notice is dated 19.9.1996 while the date of termination mentioned is 20.8.1993.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the labour Court. After perusing the record, it is found that no evidence has been recorded by the Labour Court. Issue regarding limitation was treated as a preliminary issue. It was found by the Labour Court that the demand notice having been issued after more than 3 years of termination, it was barred by limitation.
In the case of Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another, . It has been held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd v. K.P. Mad-havankutty and others AIR 2000 SC 389: 2000(1) SCT 1088 (SC). It has been held that the dispute in that case which was made after a lapse of 7 years could not be raised both on the ground of delay and lack of industrial dispute existing or apprehended.
In our earlier judgment in CWP No. 9580 of 1999 - Surjit Singh v. The Presiding Officer and others, decided on 31.10.2000, we have considered both the above mentioned judgments and observed as under :-
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.
In the present case, the plea of delay is taken by mentioning in the written statement that the claim is time barred. A replication, which has been mentioned as "Re-application" dated 19.1.1998 has been filed by the petitioner in the Labour Court. It is only stated that the application is within time. There is no reason given as to why the demand notice was given late and how the dispute cannot be said to be stale issue, or no dispute at all because it has become a stale one. The plea of delay was taken and considered and it is seen that no effort has been made even to show the reasons for delay.
This writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.