AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 19.9.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Durg in Case No.57/ID Act/2012 in between N. Vijayan Achari v. New India Insurance Company Ltd., whereby the Labour Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking salary and subsistence allowance as in original Case No.06/I.D. Act/2006 Reference an award was passed by the Labour Court, Durg on 12.12.2011, which was challenged by respondent No.1 herein in W.P.(L) No.77 of 2012, in which this Court by order dated 3.4.2014 set aside the impugned order and remitted back the matter to the Labour Court to re-examine the issue whether or not the respondent / petitioner herein is workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 afresh, however, original case was dismissed for want of prosecution on 28.11.2016.
At the outset, Mr.T.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that as original Case No.06/I.D. Act/2006 Reference in between N. Vijayan Achari v. New India Insurance Company Limited was dismissed for want of prosecution on 28.11.2016 and main issue for which original case was remanded back whether or not the petitioner is workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 has not been decided, so in the light of remand order, the petitioner's prayer for salary and subsistence allowance was not considered. So, the petitioner may be given liberty to file appropriate application before the Labour Court, Durg to get original Case No.06/I.D. Act/2006 Reference restored and reserving the aforesaid liberty, the instant writ petition may be disposed of.
Per contra, Mr.Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1, would submit that as proper recourse for the petitioner is required to get the original case restored, which he has not opted, therefore, the Labour Court, Durg has rightly dismissed the execution case and so far as restoration of original case is concerned, if the limitation survives, subject to such limitation, the concerned case may be adjudicated afresh.
Undoubtedly, the dispute relates to workman and employer. In W.P. (L) No.77 of 2012 original reference case was remitted back to the Labour Court to decide afresh and such reference case was dismissed for want of prosecution on 28.11.2016 and original reference case has not been decided. The petitioner filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of 1947, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Instead of approaching to restore original case, the petitioner has moved and challenged the impugned order before this Court on 19.12.2017.
Considering the nature of dispute, this Court find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to file an application for restoration before the concerned Labour Court within a period of 3 weeks from today. If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the Labour Court shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law on its own merit in expeditious manner, preferably within a period of 6 months . Limitation has to be considered by the Labour Court liberally. Ordered accordingly.
With the aforesaid observation / direction, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. No cost(s)