Absence Of Limitation Period Under ID Act Does Not Mandate Court To Entertain Substantially Delayed Claim: Rajasthan High Court

A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sameer Jain while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Udai Singh vs Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Dholpur & Ors. has held that the absence of statutory period of limitation under the ID Act, 1947 does not have the effect that substantially delayed lis should be mandatorily entertained by the courts.

Background Facts

Udai Singh (Petitioner) filed the present writ petition to challenge the order of the Labour Court vide which his Statement of Claim was dismissed due to substantial and prolonged delay on part of the Petitioner in raising his grievance. It was contended by the Petitioner that he was a poor labourer and was thus not well read with the intricacies of the law. It was further contended that the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 does not provide any specific period of limitation precluding the subsequent filing of claims by aggrieved individuals.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the Petitioner was terminated from service in 1991. However, the statement of claim was filed by the Petitioner in 2016 after 25 years of delay.

The court further observed that

“The statutory absence of any period of limitation in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not by itself, have the effect of stale and/or substantially delayed lis being mandatorily entertained by the Courts. The Court, while exercising its jurisdiction, must juxtapose the prolonged delay with the explanation offered in connection therewith, and only thereafter, having assessed the laches, proceed with the matter”

The court further relied on the judgement of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. Vs. T.T. Murli Babu wherein the Supreme Court had held that the Doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside and when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the writ court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not.

With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Writ Petition was dismissed.

Case No.- Civil Writ Petition No. 17821/2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 83

Case Name- Udai Singh vs Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Dholpur & Ors

Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. Arun Sharma

Click Here To Read/Download Order