PREM SINGH Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the residuary provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 providing a period of three years of limitation apply to a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and if they do not apply, whether delay is a valid ground to decline a reference under Section 10 of the Act are in essence the two questions of law which we are called upon to decide. The Motion Bench while admitting this petition has, of course, formulated the following six questions but when examined in their true perspective answers to these two questions will cover all of them:

(2.) AS the questions raised are purely legal, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case at this stage. The relevant part of Section 10 (1) of the Act under which a reference of an Industrial dispute can be made by an appropriate Government to any of the adjudicating authorities mentioned therein reads as under:

(3.) ARTICLE 137 of the Limitation Act which is the residuary clause in the Schedule provides for a period of limitation in a case for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the IIIrd division of the Schedule. This Article, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T. P. Kumhaliumma, A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 282 "will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil Court. " A reference made to an adjudicating authority under Section 10 (1) of the Act cannot by any process of reasoning be deemed to be an application or a petition under the Act and at any rate, it is not made to a civil Court. It is by now well settled that a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal is not a civil Court as under stood under the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 137 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, clearly not attracted. The questions raised in this petition need not be examined any further as they stand answered by the Apex Court authoritatively in a number of reported decisions. In Bombay Union of Journalists and Ors. v. The State of Bombay and Anr. , A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1617, Justice Gajendragadkar (as his lordship then was) while dealing with the power of the Government to make or refuse a reference under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (5) of the Act observed as under: