File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Ajaib Singh vs Sirhind Coop

By Ankita Paldiya | Views 11209

Appeal (civil) 2157 of 1999
Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, R.P. Sethi

Facts facts the Case:
1. The appellant was working as a salesman with the Sirhind Co-operative Marketing Cum Society Ltd.
2. His service was terminated on July 16, 1974.
3. The appellant did not take any steps to challenge the order for a long period of more than 7 years.
4. On April 13, 1986, the labour court answered the reference in the favor of workman.
5. The aggrieved party filed a petition under Article 226 of the constitution. The Honorable High Court has put labour court judgment aside.
6. The workman has filed this latter applicant appeal to the Supreme Court of India.
7. The Apex upheld the award of the labour court with some modifications.
Issues:
1. Had the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 will applicable to the proceedings under the act?
2. Had the services of the appellant-workman were terminated by the respondent-management allegedly without compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)?
3. Had the Labour Court Jurisdiction permits to entertain and adjudicate the reference?
Holdings of the court:
1. The provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay.
2. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defense. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone.
3. We are, however, of the opinion that on account of the admitted delay, the labour court ought to have appropriately moulded the relief by denying the appellant-workman some part of the back wages.
Procedural History:
1. The Apex court has allowed the petition of the petitioner by upholding the Labour court order with slight modifications.
2. The High Court has put the Labour court Judgment aside by giving its ruling in the favor of the employer.
3. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman with full back wages from 8.12.1981.
Rationale:
1. The provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay.
2. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defense. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone.
3. We are, however, of the opinion that on account of the admitted delay, the labour court ought to have appropriately moulded the relief by denying the appellant-workman some part of the back wages.
Dicta:
The provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.
Dissent:
In my opinion, it was a landmark judgment on Article 137 of the schedule to Limitation Act 1947. This case had laid down new guidelines for the period of limitation for any application.
Summary of Arguments:
1. The learned counsel appearing for the management-respondent has contended that the principle incorporated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. He has referred to different judgments under various enactments.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the workman has, however, submitted that the principles incorporated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act cannot be held to be applicable under the Act for the purposes of making a reference of the dispute to the labour court and that the reliance of the learned counsel on different judgments was misconceived for reasons of not taking note of the special provision of the Act which admittedly is a social welfare legislation intended to protect the interests of the workmen employed in various industries.

Case References:

Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopa Bhiva and others, 1964(3) SCR 709
Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubill and others, 1970(1) SCR 5
Sha Mulchand & Co. Ltd., 1953 SCR 709: AIR 1953 SC 98 (supra)
Sakura v. Tanaji, AIR 1985 SC 1279
Municipal Council Athani and Nityanand M. Joshi v. LIC of India, 1970(1) SCR 396
Bhagwan v. Management of the Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another, AIR 1984 SC 286
H.M.T. Ltd. v. Labour Court, Ernakulam and others, 1994 LLR 720(SC)
Ram Chander Morya v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) SCT 141