STATE OF HARYANA Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.W.P. No. 11264 of 1999 is filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 12.5.1998 (copy annexure P/6) vide which respondent No. I was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages from the date of demand notice. C.W.P. 14469 of 1999 is filed by the workman for ordering implementation of the award and for lodging criminal prosecution of respondent No. 1 to 5 for not implementing the award.

(2.) 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) I shall refer to the State of Haryana as "employer" and Shri Kartar Singh respondent as "workman" for the sake of convenience. Counsel for the employer argued that the demand notice was raised at a belated stage and, therefore, the Labour Court has erred in granting the relief. Counsel for the workman has argued that no limitation has been prescribed for raising a dispute in the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). There are various judgments of the Supreme Court on this point. In the case of Ajaib Singh v/s. The Sirhind Co -operative Marketing -cum -Processing Service Society Ltd. and another : 1999(2) SCT 667 (SC), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which there was a delay of 7 years. The Supreme Court held in that case that the provisions of Article 37 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay.