THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21639 OF 2005 DATED _____OCTOBER, 2010 BETWEEN Shaik Adam Shafi … Petitioner And The Labour Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Guntur, Guntur District, and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21639 OF 2005 O R D E R By Award dated 19.03.2005 in I.D.No.56 of 2001, the Labour Court, Guntur, rejected the petitioner’s case with costs. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner claimed to have worked in the Narasaraopet Municipality, Narsaraopet, Guntur District, from August, 1983 to October, 1984. According to him, he was terminated from service orally on 25.10.1984 without following the due procedure. Assailing the same, he approached the Labour Court, Guntur, by way of the subject I.D. only in the year 2001. According to the Municipality, the petitioner having worked during the period 1983-1984 thereafter discontinued attending to work himself. The Labour Court held against the petitioner on the ground of delay and dismissed the I.D. with costs. It is the case of the petitioner that the approach of the Labour Court was erroneous in law as the Limitation Act had no application to petitions filed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner further contended that the Municipality failed to adduce evidence to show that he had voluntarily discontinued from service in October, 1984 and the finding of the Labour Court to the contrary was without evidence. In AJAIB SINGH V/s. SIRHIND CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING- CUM-PROCESSING SERVICES SOCIETY LIMITED[1], the Supreme Court adverted to the nature, scope and intent of the Act of 1947 which, it opined, provided for ensuring fair terms to the workman; to prevent disputes between the employer-employees so that the larger interest of the public may not suffer. The Supreme Court accordingly held that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 were not applicable to the proceedings under the Act of 1947 and that relief could not be denied to a workman merely on the ground of delay. The Court was however quick to add that if the plea of delay was raised by the employer it had to be proved as a matter of fact by showing real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA V/s. SHIVALINGA[2], wherein the Court held that if there is a serious dispute or doubt about the relationship and the records of the employer become relevant, a long delay may prejudice the employer as it may be impossible for the employer to produce such records. In the present case, the petitioner approached the Labour Court after a delay of over 16 long years. The defence of the respondent Municipality is that the petitioner himself discontinued voluntarily from its service, and therefore, the question of the Municipality retrenching his services did not arise. Having slept over the matter for over a decade and a half, it is not open to the petitioner to now assail the failure on the part of the Municipality to adduce evidence to prove the factum of his voluntary discontinuation from service. On the other hand, the silence on his part over this long period of time lends itself to the adverse inference that there is truth in what the Municipality claimed. Be that as it may, the long delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Labour Court undoubtedly causes prejudice to the respondent Municipality in terms of the law laid down in SHIVALINGA as it would not be in a position to produce the attendance registers of the year 1984 to support its stand that the petitioner absented himself from duty on his own. In that view of the matter, the Award passed by the Labour Court non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of delay cannot be said to be illegal. However, mulcting the petitioner with costs was uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mere laches on the part of the petitioner did not warrant such a punitive measure. The direction to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the Municipality is therefore set aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of confirming the Award dated 19.03.2005 of the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.56 of 2001, except to the extent of imposition of costs. The parties shall bear their own costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J ______OCTOBER, 2010 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21639 OF 2005 DATED _____OCTOBER, 2010 [1] (1999) 6 SCC 82 [2] (2002) 10 SCC 167