E E CONSTRUCTION DIVN 2 Vs. M GAJAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer respectively of Co-operative Department (Construction Division-2) Government of Tamil Nadu. The 1st respondent was appointed as watchman in the writ petitioners Office on February 6, 1978. His services were terminated on May 15, 1981. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent raised I.D. No. 581 of 1992 before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent by award dated April 19, 1994 directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent. However, the 1 st respondent was removed on May 15, 1981. He approached the Labour Court only on August 10, 1992. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service but without back wages. Aggrieved by the above award, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The only argument advanced before this Court by the learned Government Advocate is that the 1st respondent was terminated on May 15, 1981 and he filed a petition under the Industrial Disputes Act only on August 10, 1992. The Labour Court viz., the 2nd respondent ought to have rejected the said petition on the ground of laches. However, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners reported in 1991 1 L.W. 72 was not accepted by the Labour Court on the ground that the said judgment was applicable only to the civil proceedings and the Labour Court had been relying upon a judgment reported in Co-operative Stores Ltd. v. K.S. Khurana, 1989-I-LLJ-584, wherein the Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the claim petition brought under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the award has to be set aside on the ground of laches.

(3.) Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent on the other hand would contend that the 1st respondent joined on February 6, 1978 and he was removed from service on May 15, 1981. No charges were framed and the 1st respondent was not called for any explanation and no enquiry conducted. Hence, ex facie the order of termination is bad. However, the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act as has been held by the Delhi High Court in the judgment reported in Co-operative Stores Ltd. v. K.S. Khurana (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Ajaib Singh v. Sir hind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1351 : 1999 (6) SCC 82 : 1999-I-LLJ-1260. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court is not debarred from entertaining an application under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground of laches.