NANOO RAM Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1955 the appellant, a railway employee, was dismissed. After long litigation he was ultimately ordered to be reinstated in 1971. Pursuant to that order, he was reinstated in November 1973. When he was dismissed from service, he was working in Delhi. After reinstatement he was transferred to Ghaziabad, which is neighbouring District of Delhi but in Uttar Pradesh. There was some dispute as to the monetary benefits payable to him consequent upon his reinstatement. So he approached the Labour court under S. 33-C (2 claiming those benefits. That application was allowed in February 1978 and he was given certain benefit accordingly.

(2.) In 1979, he made another application under S. 33-C (2 claiming some more benefits. The benefits he claimed relate to his allowance. His case was when he was dismissed from service, he was working at Delhi and therefore, right up to his reinstatement the allowance and other benefits should be computed and paid to him as if he had been in service in Delhi and not in Ghaziabad. The claim was summarily rejected by central Government Labour court on two grounds: (i) laches and (ii) by the principle of Order II, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. That order has been affirmed by the High court.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and in particular the nature of claim made in the second application under S. 33-C (2, we are in full agreement with the High court and the Labour court that the claim was belated. It was rightly refused on the ground of laches. In that view, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the applicability of Order II Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. We leave the question open. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.