No Limitation for Industrial Disputes, but Unexplained Stale Claims Rightly Rejected: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner was appointed as a part-time Class-IV employee on a fixed salary by order dated 03.11.1993; his services were terminated by a verbal order dated 17.06.1994 (para 2). On 13.08.2004 he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Dausa, and it was referred to the Labour Court (para 2). By award dated 17.06.2009 the Labour Court dismissed his claim, inter alia because he had not explained the ten-year delay (para 2). His recall application, pleading that his advocate had neither appeared nor informed him of the proceedings, was dismissed on 27.06.2012 (para 2). He called the findings perverse and said no limitation applies to an industrial dispute (para 3).

The Court found that, despite several opportunities, the petitioner had led no evidence to prove his case, and that it was undisputed he raised the industrial dispute after a delay of ten years (para 5). Although no limitation period is prescribed for raising an industrial dispute, it is settled law that stale claims ought not to be entertained without a satisfactory explanation for the delay (para 5). The Court relied on Inder Singh and Sons Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that over-stale claims should not generally be allowed, given the risk to industrial peace and the unsettling effect on the employer's finances (para 5), and on Prabhakar, which holds that although no limitation applies to a reference under Section 10(1), very stale claims should not be encouraged without a satisfactory explanation (para 6). Here the termination was on 17.06.1994 and the dispute was raised on 13.08.2004; neither the statement of claim nor the writ petition disclosed any explanation or cogent reason for the delay (para 7). The Labour Court was therefore justified in dismissing both the claim and the recall application, and the Court declined to interfere (paras 7-8).