- (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) Assailing the judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2009 passed in W.P. No. 34 of 2008 by the learned Trial Judge, this appeal has been preferred. The impugned judgment under appeal reads such: The Court :-- This writ petition is directed against an order dated 5th September, 2007 by which a preliminary objection as regards delay was rejected by the Labour Court and the matter was fixed for hearing on 12th October, 2007. Challenging that order this writ petition was filed on 22nd January, 2008, and an order staying the direction issued by the learned Labour Court for hearing of the matter was passed. The interim order was extended from time to time. Today, again prayer for extending the interim order was repeated when the matter was heard on merit. Mr. Partha Bhanja Choudhury, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that by virtue of the State Amendments of section 10(1-B) Clause [c] of the Industrial Disputes Act there is a provision that application must be filed within sixty days before the Labour Court or the Tribunal. In this case the application initially was filed before a wrong forum and after the mistake was pointed out then the application was taken back and filed in the appropriate forum. In the process two years elapsed and, therefore, the period of sixty days had already expired and thus the application was barred by limitation. Mr. Ali, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the provision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioners does not really incorporate any period of limitation. He drew my attention to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Limitation Act, which provides as follows:-- 3. (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. He contended that the language appearing in the clause relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioners does not contain any such peremptory direction. Therefore, the period provided therein cannot be treated as a period of limitation. That period is mere directory and not mandatory. The object of that provision is that it is desirable that the disputes concerning the labour and the industrial houses be disposed of early. This provision is not intended to non-suit the workman on the ground of delay. That is why this provision is not worded in such peremptory language as the provisions of the Limitation Act. He, accordingly, submitted that the ground sought to be advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners is without any merit whatsoever. I have considered the rival submissions and am of the view that there is a great deal of force in the submission advanced by Mr. Ali. I am not impressed by the submission that clause [c] of section 10(1-B) of the Industrial Disputes Act creates any bar of limitation. Therefore, I am unable to hold that the order under challenge is contrary to law. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The learned Labour Court is directed to proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible. It is, however, clarified that the petitioners shall be entitled to take all points on merits which may be available to them. Let xerox certified copy of this order be supplied by the department within seven days to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties upon compliance with the necessary formalities.
(3.) The very short and interesting question is involved in this appeal about purposive and conceptual idea of amendment of section 10 by substitution of provision of sub-section (1-B) by West Bengal amendment, in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, providing scope to the workman concerned to raise the dispute straightway by taking his case from the Conciliation Officer for effective adjudication of the issue by the Labour Court or Tribunal on framing the issues by the Court itself and limitation to file such an application by the workman and failing to file such application within the time specified in the said amended provision being West Bengal Amendment, whether the workman should be non-suited.;