Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
WORKMEN OF MCD ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Varun Prasad, Adv
W.P.(C) Nos. 3918-22/2011, 4925-29/2011, 5132-37/2011 &
5140/2011, 5142-43/2011 MCD GENERAL MAZDOOR UNION ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Varun Prasad, Adv.
1. By these petitions, the petitioners are praying for setting aside the order dated 16th December 2010, passed by learned Trial Court so far as delay and latches are concerned and remand these matters to the Labour Court with directions for computation of money due in terms of the prayer 2014:DHC:7116 made in the LCA.
2. Since issue in these petitions is same, therefore, the petitions are being disposed of by the common judgment.
3. Ms.Mini Pushkarna, learned counsel raises objection on behalf of the respondent/MCD and submits that the MCD has been divided into three corporations and the petitioners belong to which corporations has not been established. If these matters are remanded back, it will be very difficult for the trial court to get the order implemented, in case order passed in favour of the petitioners.
4. Vide the impugned order dated 16th December 2010, while deciding the application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), the learned Trial Court has held that though there was an existing right for the workmen to claim the benefit of amount in lieu of the uniform cloth and stitching charges, however, their claims are bad on account of latches, as the delay in filing the claims are totally unreasonable.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the award has not been challenged by the respondents on the issue of existing rights of workmen. However, on the issue of delay for the claims under Section 33C (2) of the Act, the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.5632/2009 by order dated 13th November 2009, has held that while entertaining the application under Section 33C (2) of the Act, since there is no limitation prescribed under the Act, therefore, the said application cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Accordingly, directed to decide the reference on merits.
6. In the case of East India Coal Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 218, the Apex Court held that there is no limitation in filing the application under Section 33C (2) of the Act. Moreover, in case of M/s Bhartiya Cuttler Hammer Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad & Ors. 2010 LAB. I. C. 4338, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has also taken the same view, however, the learned Tribunal has rejected the same by ignoring the settled law propounded by the various courts including this Court and the Apex Court as well.
7. Admittedly, learned Tribunal has held that there were existing rights for the workmen to claim the benefit of amount in view of uniform cloth and stitching charges. However, their prayers are rejected on account of latches and delay in filing the claim, which is not reasonable.
8. In view of the above discussion and the settled law, I hereby set aside the order dated 16th December 2010, qua delay and latches.
9. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the quantum of the dues on the basis of circulars dated 09th September 1986 and 04th January 1996 of the respondents and as per the law on the question of the provision for uniform cloth as well as stitching charges respectively. While computing the amount due, an opportunity shall be given to the respondents.
10. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed.
11. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 15.01.2015 for directions.
SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) DECEMBER 16, 2014 ss/sb