AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—These two writ petitions are between the same parties and arise out of identical orders. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.
The 2nd Respondent was employed as a Salesman and thereafter as Shop Manager in the retail shops of the Petitioner-organization. He retired from service on 30.06.2004. In the year 2000, he filed M.P. No. 78 of 2000 u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act'') before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,25,375-56 ps. under two different heads with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It comprised of Rs. 72,915.86 ps. towards target sales incentive and a sum of Rs. 52,663.70 ps towards illegal deductions from the salary from 1988 to 1999. The Petitioner opposed the M.P. by filing counter. Through order, dated 30.10.2006, the Labour Court dismissed the petition, holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain it.
The 2nd Respondent approached the authority under Shops and Establishments Act, 1st Respondent herein by filing two separate applications, claiming the two amounts referred to above. According to him, there was a delay of 2757 days as regards the claim for Rs. 52,463.70 ps. and 6903 days for the claim of Rs. 72,915.86 ps. Therefore, he filed I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 respectively for condonation of that delay. The Petitioner opposed the applications. Through separate but identical orders, dated 12.11.2009, the 1st Respondent condoned the delay. Hence, these two writ petitions are filed against the said orders.
Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that any claim made under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act must be submitted within a period of one year from the date, on which it became due and that in the instant case, the delay is running into years, if not decades. He further submits that even with the best possible explanation, such an enormous delay could not have been condoned. He also submits that assuming that the proceedings were initiated with the presentation of petition u/s 33C(2) of the Act, the claim stood barred, since the amount was overdue by that time.
Sri M.V. Pratap Reddy, Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent on the other hand submits that his client was making efforts to seek recovery of the amount from time to time and ultimately, he approached the Labour Court. He also submits that the rejection of the case u/s 33C(2) of the Act necessitated presentation of claims before the 1st Respondent and that the period, during which the M.P. was pending, deserves to be excluded.
The 2nd Respondent sought to recover amount under two separate heads. The first represented the alleged arrears in respect of target sales incentive and the second is the amount said to have been recovered from the salary. The petition filed u/s 33C(2) of the Act was not entertained, on the ground that the amounts were not pre-determined nor were referable to any provision of law. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent approached the 1st Respondent by invoking the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act.
Assuming that the 2nd Respondent initiated proceedings before the proper Forum, it needs to be seen whether he presented the claim within the stipulated time. The record discloses that the claim was made in the year 2000 to recover the amounts, which became due in the year 1983 and 1988 respectively. The initiation of the claim itself was barred by limitation. Added to that, the 2nd Respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent only at the fag end of 2009. The M.P. was dismissed in October 2006. Hardly any explanation is forthcoming for these three years. It is not in dispute that the limitation prescribed under the Shops and Establishments Act is one year for making claims.
Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.