Delhi High Court
Suresh Kumar vs The Management Of North Delhi ... on 22 December, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2014
W.P.(C) 9007/2014
SURESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF NORTH
DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
CM No.20566/2014 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. The application is
disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9007/2014
1. The present writ petition assails the Award dated 02.12.2014 passed
by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XVII whereby the claim of
the petitioner was held to be barred by limitation and consequently
dismissed.
2. The short issue that comes up for consideration in this writ petition is
whether the application of the petitioner was required to be filed within three
years from the date of termination. The finding of the industrial adjudicator
is that the application in terms of sub-section (3) of section 2A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as „the said Act) was
filed beyond the period of limitation. It is an admitted position that the
services of the petitioner were terminated and he was dismissed by the
respondent on 23.07.2010. It is also an admitted position that the application
under sub-section 2A (3) of the said Act was filed after 23.07.2013 i.e.
beyond the period of three years from the date of dismissal of the petitioner
from service.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however,
submits that the failure report of the Conciliation Officer under sub-section
(2) of section 2A of the said Act was given only on 01.07.2014 and that,
consequently, the period of limitation, as provided in sub-section 3 of section
2A of the said Act was thereby extended. Counsel in this behalf invites my
attention to the application dated 23.01.2013 filed before the Conciliation
Officer. The industrial adjudicator did not find any merit in the submission
made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner and, consequently, dismissed
the said application. Section 2A of the said Act reads as under:-
"Section 2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman
to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. - (1) Where
any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or
otherwise terminates the services of an individual
workman, any dispute or difference between that
workman and his employer connected with, or arising out
of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute
notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of
workmen is a party to the dispute.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10,
any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may,
make an application direct to the Labour Court or
Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to
therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date
he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of
the appropriate Government for conciliation of the
dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour
Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute
referred to it by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the
provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such
adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial
dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.
(3) The application referred to in sub-section(2) shall
be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the
expiry of three years from the date of discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of
service as specified in sub-section(1)."
4. After considering the above provision, I agree with the findings of the
industrial adjudicator for the reason that sub-section (3) of section 2A of the
said Act clearly provides that the application referred to in sub-section (2)
thereof has to be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of
three years from the date of dismissal, as specified in sub-section (1) of
section 2A of the said Act. A plain reading of the said provision does not
provide for extension of the period of limitation from the date of dismissal
by excluding the time taken during the pendency of the conciliation
proceedings before the Conciliation Officer.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is without merit
and is consequently dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
DECEMBER 22, 2014
dn
