SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT ERNAKULM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant. It is a Scheduled Bank. It filed the Writ Petition, challenging Ext.Pl order of the Labour Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondents 2 to 8 were Head Clerks working under the appellant Bank in different branches. From the day they were appointed to that post, they were discharging the functions of Special Assistants also. So, they claimed that they were entitled to get special allowance, for discharging the functions of the Special Assistants. When their claim in that regard was not accepted by the appellant Bank, they moved the Labour Court, Ernakulam, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by filing claim petition Nos. 24 and 25 of 1993, 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of 1994. Those claim petitions were heard together by the Labour Court and Ext.P1 common order was passed by it, directing payment of special allowance to them. The relevant portion of Ext.Pl reads as follows:

(3.) We heard the learned senior counsel Sri. Pathrose Mathai, for the appellant and Smt. Lakshmi B. Shenoy, for the workmen. The learned senior counsel submitted that the Labour Court is also a Court and therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to the proceedings before it. Going by Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, a claim, which is made beyond three years, is barred by limitation and the same should not have been allowed by the Labour Court.