AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 18.06.2019 (Annex.6), whereby the petition filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
The petitioner, aggrieved against the order of termination dated 30.06.2007 (Annex.2) initiated conciliation proceedings on 10.07.2012 (Annex.3). When the matter was pending before the Conciliation Officer, on 10.04.2014, during course of Megha Lok Adalat, the following order was passed :-
"माननीय श्रम आयुक्त महोदय राजस्थान के अर्द्धशासकीय पत्रांक 3910-43 के निर्देशानुसार द्वितीय मेगा लोक अदालत का आयोजन दिनांक 07.04.2014 से 12.04.2014 की अवधि में किया जा रहा है।
औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 में संशोधन के उपरांत 45 दिवस की अवधि में समझौता वार्ता कार्यवाही संपन नहीं होती है तो श्रमिक व्यक्तिगत मामले में सीधे ही श्रम न्यायालय में अपना वाद प्रस्तुत कर सकता है।
प्रार्थी स्वयं मय अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि के उपस्थित है। नियोजक अनुपस्थित है। दिनांक 07.04.2014 से 12.04.2014 की अवधि में मेगा लोक अदालत का आयोजन किया जा रहा है। जिसमें औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 की धारा 2ए (सेवा पृथकरण मामले) को समझाईश से निपटारा किया जाना है।
चूंकि श्रमिक के परिवाद को समझौता अधिकारी के अधीन वार्ता में 45 दिन से अधिक का समय हो चुका है एवं नियोजक की तरफ से सिर्फ जवाब प्रस्तुत करने के बाद समझौता वार्ता में उपस्थित हो रहे है। स्पष्ट है नियोजक की वार्ता में किसी तरह की रूचि नहीं है। अतः श्रमिक पक्ष को लोक अदालत की भावना के तहत अपने वाद को श्रम न्यायालय में न्याय निर्णयार्थ प्रस्तुत करने के लिये प्रेरित किया गया। श्रमिक पक्ष अपने वाद को श्रम न्यायालय मे प्रस्तुत करने के लिये सहमत है। श्रमिक/श्रमिक पक्ष को अपना वाद श्रम न्यायालय, बीकानेर में प्रस्तुत करने का सुझाव दिया जाता है। अतः पत्रावली श्रमिक पक्ष की सहमति से बन्द की जाती है
सही/-
समझौता अधिकारी
बीकानेर"
A perusal of the above order indicates that the dispute raised by the petitioner was closed requiring the petitioner to approach the Labour Court directly.
The petitioner filed his statement of claim on 22.06.2014 under Section 2-A of the Act. The employer filed objection pertaining to the maintainability, inter-alia, on the ground that the claim filed was barred under Section 2-A(3) of the Act having been filed after expiry of three years from the date of termination of service. The petitioner contested the said submissions, it was, inter-alia, claimed that as the dispute was of the year 2007 and the limitation has been provided in the year 2010, the same would have no application to the facts of the present case.
However, the Labour Court by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the provisions provide for limitation of three years and as admittedly, the dispute has been raised after three years, it rejected the petition filed by the petitioner as barred by limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the petitioner had approached the Conciliation Officer by raising dispute and while the dispute was pending the same was closed by directing the petitioner to approach the Labour Court and as the petitioner has raised the dispute in time, the Labour Court could not be rejected the claim as barred by limitation.
Further submissions were made that as the provision of limitation under Section 2-A(3) was introduced by amendment dated 15.09.2010, the same did not apply to the case of the petitioner as the cause of action arose in the year 2007 and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had approached the Conciliation Officer after services of the petitioner were terminated after holding the departmental proceedings by order dated 30.06.2007. The dispute was raised by the petitioner before the Conciliation Officer vide Annex.3 on 10.07.2012 i.e. after five years of termination and whereafter as noticed herein-before, the Conciliation Officer during course of Megha Lok Adalat could convince the petitioner to close the case before him and approach the Labour Court.
It is no doubt true that if the employer was not appearing before the Conciliation Officer, it was required of the Conciliation Officer to sent a failure report to the appropriate Government, however, the order dated 10.04.2014 (Annex.4) was passed with the consent of the petitioner closing the case before the conciliation authority. When the petitioner filed proceedings under Section 2-A of the Act, on respondents raising objection, the same has been held to be barred by limitation.
The provisions of Section 2-A(2) & 2-A(3), which were introduced by way of amended Act of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010, reads as under :-
"2-A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.-
(1) ............
(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, an 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)."
The provisions are explicit, wherein the workman can approach the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment etc., however, sub-section
(3) provides that the application should be made to the Labour Court before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified.
The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the cause of action arose to the petitioner prior to introduction of the provision of limitation by sub-section (3) the same would have no application is concerned, the submission made is fallacious, inasmuch as, the provision under which the application has been filed by the petitioner i.e. Section 2-A(2) of the Act, itself was introduced by the amendment Act of 2010 alongwith the limitation therein and therefore, the provision of limitation which was introduced in the year 2010 alongwith the main provision providing for the limitation would apply with all force and the submission that the same would have no application to the cause of action, which arose prior to 2007, has no basis.
The submissions as made, if accepted, would result in circumstances where if the cause of action has arisen post 2010, the same would be barred, whereas the causes, which arose prior to 2010 like in the year 2007 in the present case and the application is filed after 07 years, the same would never become barred by limitation, such a result is legally untenable.
The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner had approached the Conciliation Officer and had raised the dispute before him, where there was no limitation and the petitioner approached the Labour Court only as per the directions of the Conciliation Officer the claim could not be rejected by barred by limitation also does not advance the cause of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner could have taken advantage of the said position, if the Conciliation Officer had sent a failure report to the appropriate Government who in turn had referred the dispute to the Labour Court. Merely because the Conciliation Officer suggested approaching the Labour Court, which suggestion was accepted by the petitioner, cannot be termed as a reference under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court.
In view of the above discussion in so far as the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the Labour Court being barred by limitation is concerned, the same cannot be faulted.
Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.