Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of the Irrigation Project, Ratnagiri, were appointed as River Gauge Readers and Rain Gauge Readers and worked from 1979 to 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 (respondent) challenged this order by filing revision applications under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision applications as time-barred on 08/09/2017, holding that they were filed beyond the period of three years from the date of the Labour Court order, applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act (residuary article). The petitioners challenged this dismissal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the issue of limitation for revision under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act. It held that the period of limitation for such revision is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which provides a period of three years from the date of the order sought to be revised, and not by Article 113. The court reasoned that Article 137 applies to applications under any special Act where no specific period is prescribed. Since the MRTU & PULP Act does not prescribe a limitation period for revision, Article 137 applies. The Industrial Court had erred in applying Article 113. The High Court set aside the Industrial Court's order and remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for hearing the revision applications on merits, directing that the same be decided expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Revision - Article 113 vs Article 137 - Limitation for revision under Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act - 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 (three years from the date of the order sought to be revised), and not by Article 113 (three years from the date of cause of action). The Industrial Court erred in dismissing the revision applications as time-barred by applying Article 113. (Paras 5-7) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Termination - Labour Court order declaring unfair labour practice - Revision against order of Labour Court - The petitioners-employees were appointed as River Gauge Readers and Rain Gauge Readers and their services were terminated in 1995. The Labour Court allowed their complaints on 19/12/2005 declaring unfair labour practice. The employer challenged the order by filing revision applications before the Industrial Court, which were dismissed as time-barred. The High Court set aside the Industrial Court's order and remanded the matter for hearing on merits. (Paras 3-8)
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 or Article 137 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 remanded the matter to the Industrial Court for hearing the revision applications on merits, directing that the same be decided expeditiously.
Law Points
- Limitation for revision under Section 44 of MRTU & PULP Act is governed by Article 137 of Limitation Act (3 years from date of order)
- not Article 113 (3 years from cause of action)
- Revision application filed within 3 years from date of Labour Court order is within limitation
- Industrial Court erred in dismissing revision as time-barred
