AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner was an Apprentice trainee from 28.10.1993 to 27.10.1996 in the Respondent/Corporation. A claim petition was filed by the Petitioner u/s 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (''the Act'' for short) before the Labour Court at Mysore, to direct the management to reinstate him with full backwages and consequential reliefs. The claim was contested by the management by filing statement of objections wherein it was also contended that, the claim is barred by limitation. The Labour Court having examined the record, finding that the refusal of employment was on 1.7.1997 and the claim petition was filed on 29.6.1998 has held that, the matter is barred by limitation. This writ petition has been filed by the workman.
Incidentally, the Labour Court has also found that there is no merit in the claim made by the workman to grant him any of the reliefs prayed.
Heard the learned Counsel on both side and perused the record.
If the finding of the Labour Court that the petition is barred by limitation were to be upheld, it is unnecessary to go into the merit of the claim put forth by the workman.
There is no dispute that, the workman was refused employment with effect from 1.7.1997. The said fact gets clearly established from Exs.W4 and W8. The claim petition was filed in the Labour Court on 29.6.1998 i.e., beyond the period permitted in law. Such a dispute cannot be entertained by the Labour Court In view of bar of limitation as has been made clear by the Apex Court in the case of Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. 2007 (9) SCO 109 and the decision of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Abdul Azeez, . The view taken by the Labour Court being in consonance of the ratio said down by the Apex Court and this Court, no interference with the impugned award is called for.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.