Introduction

• This case deals with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• Basically, the question was raised after the delay of 7 years whether the appellant was able to get relief and the suit is not barred by the Limitation Act, 1963.

Facts

• The appellant's employment was terminated by the respondent, purportedly without adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
• The dispute over the termination was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate government on 19^th March 1982.
  • The management defended its actions by alleging that the appellant, a salesman, had embezzled a substantial amount of money.
• On 16^th April 1986, the Labour Court issued an award directing the reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages from 8th December 1981.
  • Interestingly, the management did not contest the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to hear the reference.
• Dissatisfied with the Labour Court's decision, the management filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to annul the Labour Court's award, primarily arguing that the appellant had delayed seeking relief for an extended period.
• The HC agreed, stating that the appellant's delay of 7 years in pursuing the matter hindered the employer's ability to prove the appellant's guilt.
• The Division Bench of HC upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge hence it was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Issues Involved

• Whether the suit was barred by Limitation Act, 1963?
• Whether the workman was entitled to get relief after 7 years of delay?

Observation

• The Court emphasized that the primary aim of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to support the vulnerable segments of society, crucial for fostering a welfare State.
• Additionally, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeks to promote industrial harmony, vital for bolstering industrial output, the lifeblood of a developing society.
• It establishes mechanisms for promptly resolving industrial disputes, prioritizing substance over procedural technicalities to prevent delays.
• Realistic negotiations, conciliation, and adjudication tailored to evolving societal norms are integral to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947's spirit, especially in a dynamic nation like India.
• Criticizing the HC's approach, the SC clarified that relief under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be arbitrarily denied due to delay.
• Delay, if asserted by the employer, must demonstrate actual prejudice, not mere conjecture.
• Moreover, delay alone doesn't invalidate a reference to the labour court, which may adjust relief based on circumstances.
• The SC also outlined a reasonable five-year period for labour disputes, underscoring that the judgment failed to consider the essence of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and pertinent legal precedents, highlighting the respondent's missed opportunity to raise relevant defenses.

Conclusion

• The Court finally upheld the decision of the Labour Court and allowed the appeal with the modification that upon his reinstatement, the appellant would be entitled to continuity of service.
  • However, back wages to the extent of 60 percent would be applicable from 8th December 1981, when he raised the demand for justice, until the date of the Labour Court's award, i.e., 16th April 1986.