Sethi, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The services of the appellant-workman were terminated by the respondent-management allegedly without compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The dispute regarding his termination of services was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government on 19-3-1982. The management justified their action on the ground that as the workman, being a salesman, had embezzled thousands of rupees, the termination of his services was justified. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain and adjudicate the reference was also disputed. However, after the evidence of the parties, the labour Court vide its award dated 16-4-1986 directed re-instatement of the workman with full back wages from 8-12-1981. It may be worth noticing that the issue regarding jurisdiction of the labour Court to entertain the reference was not pressed by the management. Not satisfied with the award of the labour Court, the management filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for quashing the award of the labour Court mainly on the ground of the workman having approached the Court for the grant of the relief after a prolonged delay. The learned single Judge of the High Court held that the workman was not entitled to any relief as he was allegedly shown to have slept over the matter for 7 years and confronted with the management at a belated stage when it might have been difficult for the employer to prove the guilt of the workman. The judgment of the learned single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.
(3.) Supporting the impugned judgment, the learned Counsel appearing for the management-respondent has contended that the principle incorporated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act though not specifically made applicable yet would be deemed to be applicable in a case under the Act for the purpose of making a reference in terms of Section 10 thereof. In support of his contentions, he has referred to different judgments under various enactments. The learned counsel appearing for the workman has, however, submitted that the principles incorporated under Aticle 137 of the Limitation Act cannot be held to be applicable under the Act for the purposes of making a reference of the dispute to the labour Court and that the reliance of the learned Counsel on different judgments was misconceived for reasons of not taking note of the special provision of the Act which admittedly is a social welfare legislation intended to protect the interests of the workmen employed in various industries.;