Mr. Rishi Kant Singh, Mr. Manoj Jadly and Mr. Prakhar Raj Thakur, Advocates v. SUBHASH

There is no infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference by this Court, goes the argument.

9. Heard both sides.

10. Going by the case of the respondent/claimant/ workman, he is out of the job from 21.04.1998. He is seen to have sent a legal notice to the petitioner/management on 03.02.2004, to which the petitioner/management is stated to have failed to reply. Pursuant to the same, the industrial dispute was raised and the reference is seen made in the year 2007, which has been answered by the impugned order dated 24.02.2018. Here it Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 10399/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:17.11.2025 17:41:01 would be apposite to refer to sub-section (4A) to Section 10 of the ID Act which reads thus: (cid:147)(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 9C and in this section, in the case of a dispute falling within the scope of section 2A, the individual workman concerned may, within twelve months from the date of communication to him of the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination or the date of commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, whichever, is later, apply in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, for adjudication of the dispute and the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, shall dispose of such application in the same manner as a dispute referred under sub-section (1).(cid:148)

11. As noticed earlier, specific case of respondent/claimant/workman is that he has not been permitted to join duties from 21.04.1998. However, he sends a notice only in the year 2006 and raises the industrial disputes in 2007, which is well beyond the period of limitation contained under Section (4A) to Section 10 of the ID Act. The finding of the Labour Court that no contention regarding delay was raised by Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 10399/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:17.11.2025 17:41:01 the petitioner/management in their reply filed before the Labour Court is apparently wrong. Paragraph 4 of their reply reads thus: (cid:147)That the petition is highly time barred and not maintainable as per notification No. F.25/(1)/Sectt. Lab./03/22 dated 27.02.2004, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain cases of the workers falling within the scope of Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act where an individual worker may within twelve months from the date of communication to him of the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment of termination of the date of the commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003 whichever is later, file his industrial dispute directly. The workman has not given the date of his order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment of termination. In para 5 of claim, workman stated that since 21.04.1998 he is on road with his family which is highly time barred(cid:133).(cid:148) (Emphasis Supplied)

12. There is clear averment to the effect that the claim is time barred. No reason(s) have been furnished for the inordinate delay in filing the claim.

13. The Labour Court has relied on the dictum of the Apex Court Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 10399/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:17.11.2025 17:41:01 in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum- Processing Services Society Limited, AIR 1999 SC 1351, to hold that the stand of the petitioner/management that the present claim and reference are time barred, is untenable. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that a reference of industrial dispute to the Labour Court is not subject to limitation under the Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said decision was rendered in the year 1999. Thereafter, by way of amendment in the year 2003, Section (4A) to Section 10 of the ID Act was brought into the statute book, which is a provision applicable to Delhi. That being the position, the learned counsel for the petitioner/management is justified in arguing that the said dictum is not applicable to the present case.

14. In these circumstances, I find that the claim moved by the respondent/claimant/workman is clearly time barred for which Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 10399/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:17.11.2025 17:41:01 absolutely no reasons have been furnished. This substantiates the contention of the petitioner/management that after giving a joining request, nothing respondent/claimant/workman. The respondent/claimant/workman cannot take steps for redressing his grievance as and when he likes. He must take steps within a reasonable time, which is not the case here. That being the position, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

15. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

16. Application(s), if any pending, shall stand closed. CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 17, 2025 Mj/er Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 10399/2018 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:17.11.2025 17:41:01