Delhi High Court
Balwan Singh & Ors. vs Sahara India Parivar & Anr. on 7 February, 2014
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on February 07, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 4357/2013
BALWAN SINGH & ORS.
..... Petitioners
Represented by: Ms.Monika Manocha, Adv. with
Mr.Amandeep Mehra, Advocate
versus
SAHARA INDIA PARIVAR & ANR.
..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Aman Walesha, Adv. for R-1
Mr.Anil Bhat, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Award dated May 06,
2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court No.1, Karkardooma, Delhi ('Tribunal' in short) in I.D No.1/2013,
whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim filed by the petitioners
against his alleged termination beyond a period of 3 years as prescribed
by sub-Section 3 of Section 2-Aof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short 'Act').
2. Three petitioners were appointed by the respondent No.1 as
Security Assistant (petitioner No.1 & 2) and Engineering Assistant
(petitioner No.3) with the respondent No.1. The merger took place
between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. It is the case of the
petitioner Nos.1 & 2 that they were transferred to Lucknow and the
petitioner No.3 to Basti. According to them, they were not allowed to
join the duties at the respective places. Their services were dispensed
with in the last week of January, 2007.
3. It is noted that a demand notice was sent by the petitioners on
August 11, 2007. The petitioners filed the claim petition on March 20,
2013 under sub-Section 2 of Section 2-A of the Act. According to them,
they had approached the Tribunal pursuant to a certificate dated October
29, 2012 issued by the Conciliation Officer under Section 2(a) & 3 of the
Amendment Act of 2010. The Tribunal rejected the claim vide the
impugned order on the ground that the same has been preferred after a
period of limitation as prescribed under sub-Section 3 of Section 2-A of
the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners had approached the Tribunal pursuant to a certificate granted
by the Conciliation Officer. She would further submit that the petitioners
are poor workmen, who were exhausting their remedies as available to
them before approaching the Tribunal.
5. The submissions so made would not help the petitioners in any
way. I find that there was no occasion for the petitioners to approach the
Conciliation Officer. Under the provisions of Section 2-A of the Act, the
petitioners could have directly approached the Tribunal. The admitted
position is that the petitioners were terminated somewhere in the month
of June, 2007. The claim petition has been filed after a period of 5 years.
I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. The relevant
paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
"Out of facts presented by the claimants, it emerged over
the record that their service were disengaged by the Airlines
in June, 2007. Notice of demand was served on the Airlines
in August, 2007. Consequently, they project a case of
termination of their services by the Airlines in June, 2007.
For approaching this Tribunal, under provisions of sub-
section 2 of section 2A of the Act, limitation of three years
from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
otherwise termination of service of an employee has been
imposed by the legislature. Thus, it is apparent that the
claimants could have approached this Tribunal under sub
section (2) of section 2A of then Act till June, 2010 only. As
is evident, claim preferred is beyond the period of
limitation. Under these circumstances, this Tribunal cannot
invoke its jurisdiction for adjudication of the dispute."
6. In the given facts, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
7. No costs.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 05, 2014/km
