(1.) IN these two writ petitions the common question that arises for consideration is as to whether Rule 61 (1) of INdustrial Disputes Rules (Central) which prescribes time for filling application for recognition of a workman as a "protected workman" is a mandatory or is a directory one. The petitions are therefore being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the point of controversy it will be appropriate to give first the material facts of both the petitions in brief.
(3.) THE last preliminary objection is that rule 61 sub-clause (1) prescribing the time for filing the application is ultra vires and beyond the competence of the Government. Learned counsel for the Karamchari Sangh has drawn my attention to Bharat Barrals & Drum Mfg. Go. Ltd. vs. E. S. I. Corporation (1) and Regional Director E. S. I. Corp. vs. Assistant Engineer, Municipal Council (2 ). I have gone through these cases carefully. Having perused these cases I am of the opinion that they are wholly distinguishable. THE reason is rule 61 (1) of the Rules does not prescribe a period of limitation. THE period of limitation has co-relation with a legal proceeding. What rule 61 (1) lay down is that the application for conferring the status of a protected workmen has to be made to the employer within the prescribed time. This is nothing but a mode for moving the appropriate authority for conferring the benefit of the protected workmen. Such a rule cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be a rule of limitation. THE cases cited by learned counsel by Shri G. L. Pareek relate to period prescribed for initiating legal proceedings. Application under rule 61 (1) is to be made to the employer and not to any court or the tribunal and, therefore, the application cannot be said to be in a legal proceeding. THEse cases therefore are wholly distinguishable and are of no avail to Mr. Pareek. THE preliminary objection on this score is also devoid of force and has to be rejected.