Punjab State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. (Constofed) vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

A.L. Bahri, J.—Constofed, popularly known and a short name for Punjab State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., is the petitioner, who challenges in this writ petition the proceedings, which have been initiated by Baldev Singh respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court, Chandigarh, u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground of limitation. Baldev Singh was suspended on July 8, 1983 and he is still under suspension. In the application filed u/s 33C(2) of the Act, he claims arrears of suspension allowance from July 8, 1983, to May 26, 1991.

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that since tinder the Limitation Act, there is a limitation of three years for approaching the Court for claiming arrears of salary etc., the same period should be applicable to the claim like petition u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the application being barred by limitation should not have been entertained and the proceedings before the Labour Court should be quashed

We are afraid this contention cannot be accepted. u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman is not supposed to get his claim adjudicated. The purpose of that application is only to compute the money already due to him on account of salary etc. No period of limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act is provided for moving such an application u/s 33C(2) of the Act and the general principle of three year''s limitation for filing suit would not be attracted to such an application.

Even otherwise, on the ground of equity and justice it would not be fair to quash the proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is an employer, who has placed its employee Baldev Singh under suspension. During the period of suspension, it is the duty of the employer to pay suspension allowance, which is known as subsistence-allowance. What the workman now claims is that subsistence allowance and not the full salary claim of which of course would depend upon final adjudication of the disciplinary proceedings, if any, pending against the workman. As and when suspension period is over, the management is to decide regarding payment of remaining salary for the period of suspension. If disciplinary proceedings are not dropped against the Workman, he is to be paid entire salary for the entire period of suspension and then cause of action would accure. Thus, at this stage, the plea of limitation is not available to the employer. It is highly unjust on the part of the employer/petitioner to seek quashing of proceedings on the ground of limitation, for the claim of subsistence allowance payable to the workman for the period of suspension

With the observations aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.