Inordinately delayed claims under Section 33-C(2) may be rejected for laches despite no statutory limitation.

The appellant-workman, employed as a Clerk with Fazilka Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., claimed that his services were terminated on 12.07.1979. Upon reference, the Labour Court, Bathinda, by award dated 14.11.1991, directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages from the date of the demand notice, i.e., 13.04.1983.

The Management’s challenge to the award was dismissed on 21.03.1997, and the workman was reinstated on 12.03.1996.

The workman thereafter sought promotion and refixation of pay on the ground that juniors had been promoted during the period of his absence. He filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”) in 2010.

The Industrial Tribunal allowed the application on 22.10.2018 and granted revised pay scales and arrears.

The learned Single Judge, in CWP No. 13157 of 2022, set aside the Tribunal’s order on the ground that the Section 33-C(2) application had been filed after an inordinate delay of approximately 19 years from the 1991 award.

1. Whether an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches despite the absence of a prescribed statutory limitation period.

2. Whether the pendency and disposal of proceedings challenging the workman’s promotion order in 2010 sufficiently explained or neutralised the delay in filing the Section 33-C(2) application.

Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 enables computation and recovery of money or benefits due to a workman under an existing right, but does not prescribe a specific period of limitation for filing such an application.

Nevertheless, the absence of statutory limitation does not prevent a court or tribunal from refusing to entertain a stale claim suffering from inordinate delay and laches.

The Court relied on S.K. Kapur v. New Delhi Municipal Council, (2004) 10 SCC 679, wherein the Supreme Court upheld rejection of a Section 33-C(2) claim on the ground of delay and laches, observing that the absence of a limitation bar does not imply that a claimant may approach the Labour Court after an unreasonably long delay.

The Court held that the workman’s Section 33-C(2) application was filed in 2010, nearly 19 years after the Labour Court’s award dated 14.11.1991, on which the claim was principally based.

The Court rejected the argument that the challenge to the 11.03.1999 promotion order, which was decided in 2010, explained the delay because the application did not seek enforcement of that promotion order; rather, it was founded on the earlier reinstatement award and the alleged entitlement to consequential monetary benefits.

Applying the principle that stale claims may be declined notwithstanding the absence of a prescribed limitation period, and relying on S.K. Kapur, the Court concluded that the claim was over-stale and ought not to have been entertained by the Industrial Tribunal.

It held that the Section 33-C(2) application was barred by delay and laches in substance, although no statutory limitation period was prescribed, and that the proceedings concerning the promotion order did not justify the delay.

Finding no illegality in the learned Single Judge’s judgment dated 10.09.2024, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.