RAMKUMAR SURYAVANSHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed by the respondent/state on 5-8-1991 on the post of Labour as Daily Wages Employee. Service of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 8-4-1995. The petitioner preferred an application before the conciliation Officer on 10-6-1999 (Annexure P-1 ). The conciliation between the parties could not succeed and as such the failure report was sent to the deputy Labour Commissioner/ respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 by order dated 31-7-2000 (Annexure P-2) refused to refer the dispute to the labour Court on the ground that the dispute was time barred.

(2.) IT is well settled principle of law that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) IN the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative marketing-Cum-Processing service Society Limited and another, 1999 (82) FLR 137 (SC): 1999 LLR 529 (SC), the Supreme Court in para 10 observed thus:-