PAKKIYAM Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/CN/SOUTHERN RAILWAYı

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P1 Order passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The said order was passed in a petition filed by the petitioner under S.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the petitioner her husband late Selvaraj was an employee working under the first respondent and during 10th March 1971 to 7th August 1982 the said employee was paid only daily rated wages. It is the case of the petitioner that having completed six months continuous service the workman was entitled for payment in the authorised scale of pay. Petition was resisted by the respondents on various grounds. It was contended that the petition filed after 13 years of the alleged entitlement is stale. The status of the petitioner herself was questioned. At any rate it was also contended that unless the petitioner established the entitlement of the workman for the regular scale of pay, the computation under S.33 (c) (2) was not possible. There was also a contention that none of the respondents before the Labour Court (the same respondents herein also) was the actual employer of the late workman. Even going by the case of the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner was a casual labourer in the Construction Branch (Project) under the control of the Executive Engineer (Construction), Salem.

(2.) The Labour Court rejected the claim petition on two grounds; (1) it was stale and (2) unless the petitioner could establish the temporary status of her late husband it was not possible to entertain a petition under S.33 (c)(2) of the Act.

(3.) Sri B. Gopakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contends that the stand taken by the Labour Court that the application is stale is not correct. True, there is no period of limitation under S.33(c)(2) of the Act. But that does not mean that it is open to a party to file a petition under S.33(c)(2) at a time which suits his convenience. If there is long delay in filing a petition, unless the delay is properly explained, to the Labour Court is justified in rejecting the claim as stale. In Joseph v. Pierce Leslie - India Ltd 1992 (1) KLT SN 6 . It is held as follows: