(1.) THE respondent claimed that he was appointed as a daily wage employee by the petitioner on 18. 6. 1980. He continuously worked without any break till 20. 11. 1985 on which date his services were terminated without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25f of the industrial Disputes Act. He approached the Government on 10. 7. 1995 raising an industrial dispute. After conciliation having failed the Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court on 20. 11. 1995. Before the Labour Court the respondent contended that the termination is bad as being contrary to Section 25f of the Act. In so far as the delay in raising the dispute is concerned, it was stated in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court directing Government not to terminate the services of daily wagers, the respondent was making representations after representations to the petitioner for reconsideration of his case in the light of the Supreme Court judgment. When ultimately the petitioner refused to take him back to duty he was constrained to raise the industrial dispute approaching the Government on 10. 7. 1995 and, therefore, if there is any delay it is for a sufficient cause and requires to be condoned.
(2.) PETITIONERS denied all the contentions of the respondent and specifically contended that for uncertainty claimant at his own accord left the work to gain more money. He did not work for 240 days in 12 calendar months. Apart from that, the claimant is not entitled for any relief since there was delay of more than nine years in raising the dispute and, therefore, sought for rejection of the said claim.
(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. After hearing both the parties and by looking into the evidence adduced on record, the Labour Court purported to deal with the question of limitation first and the relevant discussion we find in paragraph 6 of the award. The Labour Court referred to a judgment of the supreme Court reported in 1999 LAB 1c 1435 where it was held that Article 137 of the limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. Further it was held that the relief under the Act cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. On the ground of delay reference cannot be rejected and the question of delay would be taken into consideration while moulding the reliefs. Subsequently, it proceeded to appreciate the material on record and came to the conclusion that the respondent has established that he has completed 240 days in a calendar year and admittedly no notice is served on him under Section 25f and other legal requirements are not complied with, the termination was held to be bad. Therefore, it proceeded to pass an order directing the reinstatement of the respondent into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits but declined to grant any back wages. This award of the Labour Court was passed on 29. 9. 1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.