(1.) Vide order being assailed dated 16.02.2006 (Annexure P3), Labour Court, Patiala, declined the claim of the workman under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') being not maintainable. In short, workman claimed wages for having served me management even on Saturdays, being on an octroi duty w.e.f. 11.03.1989 to 31.12.2000, while, his counterparts or colleagues posted in the office of Municipal Council, had a five days a week. A sum of Rs. 80,158/- were claimed as detailed in document Ex. W3, appended with the application Facts, that were not in dispute before the Labour Court:
(2.) Labour Court, in reference to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 20126 of 2002, titled as "M.C. Bhatinda v. POLC Bhatinda" decided on 02.03.2004, observed that the workman could be entitled to the wages only for a period of three years, immediately preceding the date of filing of the application. Since, the workman, in the matter in hand, had moved an application on 13.12.2004, he could only be granted wages till 12.12.2001, and, for those Saturdays when he actually did an octroi duty. But since the workman claimed relief w.e.f. 11.03.1989 to 31.12.2000 only, his application was time barred. Accordingly, the relief prayed for, was declined. Thus, this petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 5. Learned counsel for the workman contends that as after 31.12.2000, workman was never posted at octroi check point, how could he claim wages for a period w.e.f. December 2000 to December 2004. Therefore, he could be granted wages for 3 years preceding 31.12.2004, for the Saturdays, when he actually worked. And, in the situation, at best workman could be attributed the delay w.e.f. 31.12.2000 to when he indeed moved an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act i.e. 13.12.2004. But that too would not be fatal as provisions of Section 33(C)(2) do not postulate any limitation within which a claim has to be made.