Industrial Disputes Act Time Consumed In Proceedings At Forum Lacking Jurisdiction Is Excluded From Limitation Period: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The bench noted that the Workman could only approach the Industrial Tribunal after the expiry of 3 years because the matter was pending before the Labour Commissioner.

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner, a workman, purportedly terminated on 10.08.2016, directly filed a claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I in Chandigarh. However, this filing exceeded the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the Workman also submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of the delay. Despite this, the application was rejected by the tribunal on the grounds of an absence of a specific explanation regarding the delay in filing the accompanying claim petition. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) challenging the order of the tribunal.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court referred to the communication issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner Chandigarh, that the Workman initially filed a petition before the Labour Commissioner. Subsequently, upon receiving a certificate advising the Workman to approach the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, the Workman pursued the matter there. However, due to the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Commissioner, the prescribed limitation period of three years expired.

The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Purni Devi & Anr. Vs. Babu Ram & Anr [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 273], where the SC held that if an applicant has diligently pursued a matter before a wrong forum and time was consumed in doing so, this time should be excluded when computing any delay in the competent court of law. Further, Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act underscores the exclusion of time when proceedings are pursued with due diligence and good faith before a court lacking jurisdiction to entertain them.

The High Court noted that the Workman diligently pursued a remedy before the Labour Officer-Cum-Conciliation Officer before filing the petition under Section 2-A of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Therefore, it held that it would be inappropriate to conclude that no plausible explanation was provided by the Workman regarding the delay in filing the accompanying claim petition.

Consequently, the impugned order issued by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, was quashed and set aside by the High Court.

Case Title: Ranjeet Singh vs The Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-LC-1, Chandigarh and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 18

Case Number: CWP No. 9957 of 2023

Advocate for the Petitioner: Devender Kumar

Advocate for the Respondent: Balram Sharma

Click Here To Read/Download Order