Case: Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. &amp; Another

even though Ref. (IT) No. 203 of 1970 was decided against the employees concerned, still the cause of action to claim the implementation of the said agreement or settlement had arisen for the first time after the decision given by the Honble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 1865 of 1982 dated 5-1-1984. Therefore, the complaint filed on 4-4-1984 cannot be said to be barred by limitation at all. Had the Honble Supreme Court not declared the correspondence (Annexure A) to be agreement in between the parties, the controversy about the field force, being not workmen had already come to an end. The judgment of the Supreme Court does not give any cause of action to the first respondent. The Supreme Court only interpreted the three letters and affirmed the rights of the parties emerging from those letters. In other words, the Supreme Court has upheld the view of the first respondent as regards the interpretation of three letters are concerned. Therefore, the observations of the Industrial Court that the Supreme Court judgment gives the first respondent a fresh cause of action cannot be accepted. As we pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court judgment may give some impetus to file the complaint in question before the Industrial Court. It is common knowledge that a judgment of a court will not give a cause of action to a litigant. Cause of action for a litigation arises out of a wrong committed by the opposite party. Moreover, a judgment of a court cannot infuse life to cause of action which was already dead. It is a cardinal principle of law of limitation that once the limitation starts to run nobody can stop it unless and until a competent court stops its running. So also a cause of action once obliterated by operation of law of limitation cannot be rebuilt. In this context we cannot appreciate the finding of the Industrial Court that the non implementation of a settlement is a continuing process. It is clear from the facts of this case, but for the Chitales Award and consequent rejection of the SLP by the Supreme Court, perhaps Industrial Court may be right in making such observations. But when a competent court has given a finding, rightly or wrongly, and the parties have accepted it for a long time, one cannot conceive of a position that it is a continuing wrong. In the absence of a valid explanation for keeping the matter in cold storage for 13 years from 1971 to 1984 the present complaint is barred by limitation before the Industrial Court. As observed by the Industrial Court but for the Supreme Court decision the entire matter would have been considered as closed. Merely because Supreme Court has made the observation first respondent cannot have limitation. As is well known the object of statutes of limitation is founded on public policy. It is to compel the litigants to prosecute their case diligently. Such a policy is necessary to secure quiet and repose of the community. Another consideration is that one should not be complacent on his own rights. The old maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium is quite relevant in these days also. A party who is insensible to his remedies or who does not assert his own claims with promptitude has no right to seek the aid of the State. When we closely watch the conduct of the first respondent it can be seen that there was no room for any doubt that it has acquiesced on the award of Mr Justice Chitale by keeping silent for a long time. The doctrine of acquiescence is based on the conduct of the parties with knowledge of its legal rights. Acquiescence amounts to absolute or positive waiver of the rights of a person who acquiesced. Though it is quite different from delay or laches, but in the factual context of the case it is very relevant here. If a person having a right, stands by and sees another deal with the right inconsistent with that right and watched it for a considerably long time say, 12 years or more, he cannot afterwards complain. Under Indian Law of Limitation generally even rights over immovable property loses after 12 years where it was not properly exercised. Here the complainant knows that under S.28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, period of 90 days was prescribed for ventilating their grievance. No explanation worth consideration has been put forward by the first respondent. According to us, the Industrial Court committed serious miscarriage of justice in disposing of the issue of limitation. Under the circumstances we have no doubt that the complaint of the first respondent is barred by limitation. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of limitation. It is obvious from the above quoted reasoning of the High Court that it proceeded primarily on the events which happened during the period from 1975 to 1984. The High Court has taken the history of the events during the said period of about 10 years as the basis for reaching the conclusion that the complaint was barred by limitation. We are of the view that the High Court failed to appreciate the effect of this Courts judgment delivered in the year 1984. The said dismissal (sic decision) gave a fresh cause of action to the complainant to agitate the matter which was unilaterally blocked by the management by its order of June 1975. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasoning of the Industrial Tribunal and also that of the High Court. We have no hesitation in holding that we agree with the reasoning of the Industrial Tribunal and we hold that the High Court was not justified in reversing the well reasoned order of the Tribunal on the issue of limitation.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of limitation. It is obvious from the above quoted reasoning of the High Court that it proceeded primarily on the events which happened during the period from 1975 to 1984. The High Court has taken the history of the events during the said period of about 10 years as the basis for reaching the conclusion that the complaint was barred by limitation. We are of the view that the High Court failed to appreciate the effect of this Courts judgment delivered in the year 1984. The said dismissal (sic decision) gave a fresh cause of action to the complainant to agitate the matter which was unilaterally blocked by the management by its order of June 1975. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasoning of the Industrial Tribunal and also that of the High Court. We have no hesitation in holding that we agree with the reasoning of the Industrial Tribunal and we hold that the High Court was not justified in reversing the well reasoned order of the Tribunal on the issue of limitation.