BHURVA RAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner submitted his statement of claim which was replied by respondent No. 2. Both the parties, led oral and documentary evidence. Vide impugned award, the Labour Court rejected claim of the petitioner on the premises that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in one calendar year and further that the petitioner has failed to explain delay of 8 years in submitting his claim.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court could not have dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay. According to him, once the dispute is referred to the Labour Court, it is obliged under the law to answer the reference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that terms of reference did not include any issue as to whether the claim was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Therefore, the Labour Court could not have dismissed the claim on the ground of delay. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of Kuldeep Singh v. General Manager, Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and another, 2006 1 SCC 106.