Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of the Irrigation Project, Ratnagiri, were appointed as River Gauge Readers and Rain Gauge Readers between 1979 and 1991. Their services were terminated in 1995. They filed complaints of unfair labour practice before the Labour Court, Ratnagiri, between 1995-96. The Labour Court allowed the complaints on 19/12/2005, declaring that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practice. The employer filed revision applications before the Industrial Court, which were dismissed on 30/04/2010. The petitioners then filed revision applications before the Industrial Court challenging the employer's revision, but these were dismissed by order dated 08/09/2017 on the ground of delay, as the Industrial Court held that the limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act (three years) had expired. The petitioners challenged this order in the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in applying Article 113; instead, the limitation for a revision under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which provides a period of sixty days. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Industrial Court to decide the revision applications on merits, after considering the delay condonation application. The court also noted that the Industrial Court has the power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Revision under MRTU & PULP Act - Applicable Article - The period of limitation for filing a revision application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (sixty days), and not by Article 113 (three years). The Industrial Court erred in applying Article 113 to dismiss the revision applications as time-barred. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination of Services - The petitioners-employees were appointed as River Gauge Readers and Rain Gauge Readers with the respondent from 1979 to 1991, and their services were terminated in 1995. The Labour Court allowed their complaints in 2005, declaring unfair labour practice. The employer's revision against that order was dismissed in 2010. The petitioners' revision against the employer's revision was filed in 2017 and dismissed as time-barred by the Industrial Court. (Paras 3-5) C) Limitation Act - Revision Application - Condonation of Delay - The Industrial Court has the power to condone delay in filing revision applications under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, and the period of limitation is sixty days under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The matter was remitted back to the Industrial Court to decide the revision applications on merits after considering the delay condonation application. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of limitation for filing a revision application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 is governed by Article 113 (three years) or Article 137 (sixty days) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order dated 08/09/2017 passed by the Industrial Court, and remitted the matter back to the Industrial Court to decide the revision applications on merits after considering the delay condonation application.
Law Points
- Limitation for revision under Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act is governed by Article 137 of Limitation Act (60 days)
- not Article 113 (3 years)
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 137
- Article 113
- Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
